Commentary: Over Restored?

[Guest timsweet]

Commentary: Over Restored? | Average Guy's Car Restoration, Mods and Racing

I was reading an article recently in one of my favorite periodical…you know…from the best auto magazine publishing company, IMHO, Hemmings, specifically Muscle Machines. The article was entitled Lessons of Originality and written by Terry McGean. I enjoy his pieces in HMM.

This article pointed out the importance of all original muscle car specimens, used as models for restoration and an understanding of how they were built, meaning exactly, how and why they were put together in the manner they were. This is a very valid point.

Terry goes on to say that today’s restorations are often taken too far and lose some of their original character. Again, another valid fact one can’t argue, but…..

For example, my 1970 Mustang coupe’s shock towers were stamped out and the car assembled without access to grease fittings. The towers had to be altered, in most cases just cut with a torch, so that the fittings could be reached. That is a known engineering/factory flaw and is a cool ( I think) characteristic that makes it unique. ‘Fixing’ that by replacing with re-manufactured parts with the cut out already there (I don’t believe these exist..but humor me here..ok..I know you usually do..and thanks for that!!) would be disappointing . It’s not like a safety hazard or something serious.

1970 Mustang Shock tower with cut out for grease fitting.

But there is just too much emphasis placed on some ‘original’ characteristics, like the correct paint mark or undercoating on parts. Irregular panel alignment or even one of the bigger deals, paint, specifically what is known as orange peel or that somewhat dimpled look to some factory paint jobs, are considered the epitome of originality and should re-create. To me that is just nonsense.

If you were to look at the side of my 07 Corvette you’ll notice the orange peel effect which looks like the surface of …. yes…an orange. This is said to be very important when judging a car in some levels of the business. But back in the days when I worked in my father’s body shop businesses, orange peel was a product of sloppy work. That is Terry’s point as well, that the cars were assembled with much less care, a lot less care than, of course we take with restoration. (More on that in a bit.)

Here is where I personally begin to draw the line about ‘caring’ whether a car is “restored” to original. First, if it’s restored, it’s not original or re-phrased – “It’s only original once!” (Don’t worry I’m going to drag you down that discussion path too far.) Second, small things like the realignment of the doors or hood or other panels doesn’t make it any more unoriginal if it’s restored nor does it distract from the car at all. The art of the restoration is what is really important and minor improvements are nearly unavoidable.

Let me use the restoration (we’ll call it “Part I”) of my 1970 Mustang coupe. I intended to restore it to what was possible back in 1969-1970 then the cars were built. Everything is period, not original to the car (swapped a 1970 302 for the original 250) but available as a possible option. I love the feel of this car, it still performs as it did back then, even with the aligned hood. At this point in its life span the car is as close to original as it’s going to get (it still has drum brakes). I’ve realigned the panels, I’ve replaced the motor mounts with polyurethane. In the next round of restoration the car will enter its “restro-mod” phase. It will take the Mustang way past the line I drew the first time around.

And why not? Hey…come…on, we project so much emotion in on our cars…’She’s just not running right’ or ‘That car just doesn’t like the cold’. Why not project that they all wish to grow and to change to become more than they were?!??! (Too much of a stretch…let me re-read it…..hang on…mmm….umm…………yeah too much…since I already typed it…I’ll leave it…no sense wasting bytes…pls tell me you got that?????)

Terry mentions that the folks building cars back in the 1960’s often cared little about what they were actually doing and of course none of them were as concerned as we are when we restore them. Now I wasn’t at the factories back then, but I bet in general they took a lot of pride in their work. Of course there were those that didn’t and those that did Monday – Thursday, but on Fridays, not so much. This happens in every business. However, back then many things were done by hand and during long shifts, back-breaking work to be sure. Not to mention that the engineering tolerances weren’t nearly as tight as they are today, it just wasn’t a concern. My only experience with the manufacturing side was my visit to the Corvette assembly plant (I’m going back this year) and it’s hard to tell what everyone everyone was feeling that Tuesday, but you could see the dedication to the overall process. Union’s have made a huge impact and as has technology, they both have had negative and positive effects on the business – but that’s another article.

I worry (but not too much) that the purists will ruin the art of restoration. Terry’s article reminds us that preserving original muscles car are important, as reminder of how it use to be done. But I say they shouldn’t be the only measure of a restored car. Restore it to enjoy it.

Thanks for reading.

Tim

[ted sweet]

in my opinion over restored is in correctly restored.

[Dave Mellor NJ]

There was an article in this week's "Old Cars Weekly" about the 69 Boss 429 Mustang and how they had to alter those shock towers to allow for the "too wide" 429 engine.

[Guest]

First, this is my opinion so bear with me. I consider cars that have been restored to what could have been ordered with a car when new still a resto mod. Example; making a 61 Pontiac with standard brakes, three on the tree and a 2bbl 389 car into a 4speed on the floor 348 tri-power 389 with eight lug wheels. The build sheet says it all.

Talk about cutting holes. I'm the original owner of a 69 H-O Pontiac LeMans, when the A/C evaporator oil drain back tube started leaking I went to Pontiac and bought a new Harrison unit and in the box was a template to drill a one inch hole in the rt. inner fender to get to the nut for the lower evaporator case. Because the factory supplied the know how and template I believe it can still be considered factory. What is not considered factory is I got a piece of sheet metal and drilled a larger hole to install the waste plug over the hole in the inner fender to keep water out.

I'm the original owner of a 76 Olds. When I went to pick up the car (12 week wait on a special order) I was very disappointed and almost rejected it. This car came from the factory with bubbles and sand in the paint on the hood. The Rt. Ft. door, L-ft door both and cowl had dents. When I pointed this out to the salesman he said "what do you want a Rolls Royce?". I carry a letter from the head judge of OCA explaining that this Olds had body and paint work done by the dealer prior to delivery ( acting as a rep. of the factory ) to explain why the paint in those areas does not match and why it is cracked. I'm in the middle of building a 62 Pontiac Catalina, after it's done I will start on the Olds. I could never restore it the way it came from the factory.

Don

[Guest bofusmosby]

First, this is my opinion so bear with me. I consider cars that have been restored to what could have been ordered with a car when new still a resto mod.

Don

I find this interesting. My 37 did not come with a radio, even though it could have been ordered with one from the factory. It never entered my mind that this would be considered a modification. I had always thought that if anything were to be added, it would be perfectly fine, as long as the "addition" was the original item(s) that was offered from the factory at the time of manufacture (ie options).

Are cars judged by what "originally" came with that particular car?

[MCHinson]

Jim,

For AACA Judging, any accessory that was available from the factory for a particular make and model or any factory authorized dealer installed accessory is OK. AACA does not attempt to determine exactly how a particular car came from the factory.

While I am a purist, I realize that it is almost impossible to restore a car without some over-restoration. For example, basically any paint that you buy today is going to give a better paint job than the average antique car came from the factory with. I personally like to see my car and others as close to how they looked originally as possible, but I would not specifically try to do bad hood/door alignment, or poor quality paint trying to "more accurately" replicate the original fit and finish of an antique car as it came from the production line.

[R Walling]

I am presently working on a 41 Ford COE. It is not my intention to make it look like it left the factory but rather to appear as a working truck that has been repaired by a mechanic at a small shop.

The dents will be "pounded out" and the welds will be somewhat ground down. The final paint will appear sound, but far from perfect.

It will look like a truck that has worked hard all it's life and can go on for a few years more.

It's a fun project, like life, not to be taken too seriously. I have show cars, and I have drivers, this is a fun car!

[Guest bofusmosby]

Matthew

Thank you for the clarafication on this. I have no intention of adding anything to my car that was not an option when new. I must admit though, my dash kind of looks a bit plain without the radio or clock. I almost bid on a radio on Ebay a few days ago that was an actual factory radio from a '37 Pontiac. Glad to hear that this is acceptable.

[GrayCav56]

In my opinion there is a difference between "overly restored" and "properly built". I would consider overly restored to use items of a quality not available during the original manufacture of the vehicle. I'm thinking stainless steel brake and fuel lines, laser cut parts instead of those stamped out and having the flashing cut off, etc. I guess we are all talking about paint, but it is darn near impossible to find a shop that can repaint a vehicle with the exact type coatings as done in the day. I suppose powdercoating the frame and such parts would fall into the overrestored category for me.

To me, properly built means that the car is assembled in the manner envisioned by the designers and engineers. None of them designed in bad panel fit or sloppy wiring runs or orange peel. (Although it appears they designed inaccessible grease fittings, eh?). I don't think that taking the extra time to properly shim a fender or a door, doing a timely wet sand in between coats or ensuring the window felts are "just so" is a bad thing.

I personally don't have any problem with adding any factory options that were available, if they are done as the factory would have done them. That being said, it is sad when decent, restorable vehicles with base or low option motors are constantly being rebuilt as clones with Hemi's, 409s or loaded with Yenko cues. I really hope to see some original 6 cylinder AACA Senior Camaro outdraw a Yenko Clone at Barrett-Jackson some day.

Edited February 9, 2011 by GrayCav56 (see edit history)

[Restorer32]

Theoretically a particular car could have come from the factory with perfect panel alignment and beautiful paint. I say restore them as they were designed to be built but don't overdo it. They were not intended to have orange peel and poorly aligned panels obviously.

[Restorer32]

I just reiterated what Gray Cav said. He said it better.

[TG57Roadmaster]

You should run this by the guy who restored his car with all NOS and NEVER starts or drives it,

just pushes it into place at shows. Those must be some fab-u-lous trophies he's going after!

TG

[GrayCav56]

I just reiterated what Gray Cav said. He said it better.

No my friend, YOU said it better, and saved the reader a lot of extraneous words in the process!

[Guest timsweet]

in my opinion over restored is in correctly restored.

Note: Thanks for comment. I'm originally from Saratoga Srpings, NY

[Guest frazer51]

I get the impression from what I've been reading that bad hood and door alighment was done "intensionally" at the factory and for me during restoration to improve the alighment would be over restoration.:confused: Here I am with limited knowledge [ not trained] but I have the ability to improve the alighment. My thery is that on any given day with the thousands of cars that are produced it is possible for the trained workers to produce a car with perfect alighment and even paint just as I did. So as you are judging my car why don't we assume that this is that car. As my Mom would tell me even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in awhile, so maybe I found that perfect car. Well I've said my piece.

[trimacar]

To me, having a car that was in such perfect shape (and having the desire to keep it that way) that it's pushed on and off a trailer for shows would be like having a stuffed dog as a pet.

You can pet it, and it'll never die on you, but it'll never give you the smiles that a running dog will.

Anyone who test drove or bought American cars in the 1960's knows that just about every currently restored car from that era is over restored. Fit and finish were second to build 'em and sell 'em......

[W_Higgins]

I realize the term is used innocently enough and what the general context is, but usually these discussions are fruitless because they have people going in several different directions. "Over restored" is a butchering of the English language. One cannot "over restore" something. Someone said it above -- it is "incorrectly restored". To "restore" is the standard, any deviation from that is just not correct.

It's much like where we keep reading of lone gunmen being referred to as "conspirators". It takes at least two to conspire. Until the hobby gets a grip on the terminology, it makes it difficult to discuss.

[Guest timsweet]

Does anyone Mind if I post their comment on my blog?

Average Guy's Car Restoration, Mods and Racing | Muscle Cars, Classic Cars, Restoration, Car Mods, Corvettes, Mustangs,

[MCHinson]

Personally, I would prefer that you just provide a link to this discussion, to keep it in context. My response makes sense discussing the subject in regards to AACA Judging, taken out of context, it might appear that I am trying to tell the world that the AACA perspective is the only standard.

[Restorer32]

Just like there are no degrees of uniqueness. Either a car is unique or it isn't. It can't be "very" unique or "somewhat" unique.

[trimacar]

OK, now we're into picking nits. Always fun.

Without doing the boring Webster's thing, here's how I'd define the terms:

"Restored" means to bring an object back to it's original condition (not necessarily perfect, just to the condition it was originally built/fabricated/assembled).

"Over restored" would then mean object is brought back to better than original condition (better fit and finish).

"Incorrectly restored" means an attempt has been made to bring the object back to original condition, but something is now different or not original (incorrect finish, for example).

And, of course, this will be a subject of debate forever. To some, owning only a "perfect" object is desirable. To some, a functional object, although not perfect, is just fine.

Here we go.........

[Guest timsweet]

Personally, I would prefer that you just provide a link to this discussion, to keep it in context. My response makes sense discussing the subject in regards to AACA Judging, taken out of context, it might appear that I am trying to tell the world that the AACA perspective is the only standard.

Here is what I placed:

Follow more of this conversation at

http://forums.aaca.org/f169/commentary-over-restored-297945.html

Antique Automobile Club of America runs a great web site and forum.

[W_Higgins]

Like I said, I understand the context of the term. Not trying to nit-pick, it's just whenever the topic comes up it has a tendency to splinter into different non-restoration related topics. I just feel that it is due in large part to starting a discussion with a term that means different things to different people since it isn't actually a definable scenario.

[Restorer32]

W Higgins...as a total change of subject but related to your interest in Hess&Eisenhardt, we are working on a '56 Cadillac H & E built station wagon. We will NOT over restore it.

[MCHinson]

Restorer32,

Excellent sidetrack.... H&E of course would be custom built... not exactly a fast paced production line item. So, it would have been built with more attention to detail than the average production car, so it would be much more difficult to "overrestore" your H&E example.

[MCHinson]

For what it is worth, Let's review the Judging Guidelines information on the subject:

There shall be no penalty or premium for

over-restoration. Over-restoration and nonauthentic

restoration are not the same.

Paint with a finer finish and higher gloss

than original paint would be considered

over-restoration.

Chrome plating or varnishing

a part which was originally painted

would be considered non-authentic restoration,

and the vehicle would receive the appropriate point

deduction on the judging form.

[W_Higgins]

W Higgins...as a total change of subject but related to your interest in Hess&Eisenhardt, we are working on a '56 Cadillac H & E built station wagon. We will NOT over restore it.

Very cool. I don't want to throw the o.p. off topic, but if you were to start a thread about that or H&E stuff in general, I'd love to participate.

[Guest Silverghost]

Re: the comment about hopeing to see a six cylinder Camaro bringing more money than a Yenko Camaro at the Barrett~Jackson auction.~~~

It will NEVER happen as I suspect that B-J would never accept that car consignment.

B-J is basically a musclecar & hotrod/streetrod auction. They like flash and pizzzazz~~~ That is their market~~~and that is what their buyers want ! B-J knows this fact very well !

The only time you might ever see a 6 cylinder Camaro beat the selling price of a Yenko Camaro, & also appear at B-J Scottsdale is if it was once owned by someone like JFK or Elvis !

Then it would fit right in wih their auction marketing theme~~~

Slim chances of that EVER happening !

I doubt both these guys ever owned a base model car ! ?

As far as "Over-Restored" cars go....

Most cars that appear at most car-shows today are over-restored to a better paint quality, fit & finish, and under-hood detailing & paint quality than ever first left the factory in my opinion~~~unless it is shown today as a driver/survivor car~~~

This is just my opinion !

I have been around his hobby all my life~~~

The quality of cars at most shows keeps getting better all the time !

I have seen this happening over the last 55 years !

Most everyone who competes at judged shows for an award or trophy wants the ultimate "Perfect Car" !

Judged car-shows by their very nature fuel this pursuit of perfection that we see at most shows today.

That's the way it just is~~~

Think about it ?

If you paid big bucks to have a restoration shop restore & repaint your show-car I suspect you would not accept bubbles, pits, or orange peel in your new paint finish. You would also not accept poor panel seam fit !

And why should you?

The car by the very nature of it being restored by a good shop would mean that it woud look much better in most cases than when it first left the factory when new !

There is nothing wrong with that !

This is just my opinion ~~~

Edited February 9, 2011 by Silverghost (see edit history)

[DAVE A]

For what it is worth, Let's review the Judging Guidelines information on the subject:

There shall be no penalty or premium for

over-restoration. Over-restoration and nonauthentic

restoration are not the same.

Paint with a finer finish and higher gloss

than original paint would be considered

over-restoration.

Chrome plating or varnishing

a part which was originally painted

would be considered non-authentic restoration,

and the vehicle would receive the appropriate point

deduction on the judging form.

Matt;

I certainly understand that there will be no deduction for overrestoration, the problem lies in restoring just to factory standards. Crosleys were crudely built cars. If I was to restore one just to the level that they came from the factory and put it on an AACA show field, there is no way that points would not be deducted for fit, finish, etc. Now you can say to me that I could support the condition with doccumentation, but how do you doccument the fact that the cars were poorly built and finished?? There will be no factory doccumentation on cheap!!! Perhaps our terminology would be better if we said "how the car should have come from the factory". I don't know of a restored Crosley in our entire club that hasn't been "overrestored". The few nice originals that I have seen are so crude compared to them, that they remain in hiding and never see a show field.

Please don't confuse this as a criticism of the AACA judging, because it is not. I don't see any way to do it any better short of having experts of every individual marque to judge every car at a show. There is no combined club such as ours that would have amount of experts to do that. I like our system and it is the most fair way possible to judge a combined class of cars. It is just that for Crosleys, to participate in AACA, overrestored is the only way they can be!!! If Powel Crosley saw them as they are today, he would surely not recognise them!! (or at least he'd fire the people who spent all that money building them)

[Guest]

Jim,

For AACA Judging, any accessory that was available from the factory for a particular make and model or any factory authorized dealer installed accessory is OK. AACA does not attempt to determine exactly how a particular car came from the factory.

While I am a purist, I realize that it is almost impossible to restore a car without some over-restoration. For example, basically any paint that you buy today is going to give a better paint job than the average antique car came from the factory with. I personally like to see my car and others as close to how they looked originally as possible, but I would not specifically try to do bad hood/door alignment, or poor quality paint trying to "more accurately" replicate the original fit and finish of an antique car as it came from the production line.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As said before that it is my opinion. I know what AACA, POCI, OCA rules are. I just go by the term out of the dictionary. To bring back or put back into a former or original state. Original state is what the build sheet says, not by what could have been. If I restore my Olds like it came from the factory I would really get dinged at a show for body & paint work. My car is shown in a unrestored catagory and when a judge says something about the paint or the dents ( not fixed properly ) in the ft doors, I just say factory original.

BTW Pontiac fans that collect Pontiac race cars pay a premium for radio block off cars and discarded block off plates.

Don

[MCHinson]

Dave,

In a perfect world of judging, a Crosley with exactly the type of poor fit and finish that you are talking about would not get any deductions. That is what those in charge of the AACA Judging Schools are repeatedly trying to instill in judges. The production car classes should be expected to look less "perfect" than the cars in the hand built "Classics" class.

One of the tools used in the not too distant past at AACA Judging schools was having a new car dealer displaying a new car outside the classroom. The attendees were invited to "judge" the car. Then a discussion was held about "How many points would you take off on that car?" A few judges wanted to nitpick the fit and finish and paint imperfections and so on and so forth.... Of course the correct answer was.... ZERO POINTS, it was not perfect but that is how the car came from the factory. It still had the new car sticker in the window and yes it had imperfections, but for AACA Judging, it is a 400 point car.

The Ford Model T's original paint method was very crude compared to even a Model A's paint, which is crude compared to Modern paint technology.

One of my favorite quotes about this issue came from Dave Corbin. Dave and I were admiring a row of Model A Fords at Hershey. (I know he is a Buick man, but this is a true story.) Dave related the story of his "old spinster aunt" and her friend who he had taken to a car show. He said they walked around and around a similar row of Model A Fords eyeballing them for quite a while. Dave's Aunt came back and told him, "Corby, they weren't that nice when they were new!"

[DAVE A]

I attended judging school to try to learn as much as I could in order to try to meet the standards the judges will use. (by the way, I will continue to attend and judge a few times, but I am having too much fun restoring and showing already to become a judge at the level of most of them I have met) I have developed a great respect for those that do a lot of judging. When I was restoring my Farm o Road, I spend a number of hours anguishing (is that a word?) over the welds on the frame. I am a pretty poor welder, but if I ever welded something together that looked that bad, I'd sell the welder and quit. And just so you know, I've looked at a couple of dozen others and most of them look even worse!!! I'm not sure that even the most seasoned judge could overlook some of them!! (by the way, I did decide to leave them and not grind them smooth)

[earl e rizer]

When I look at a 30's or 60's car car that has a "Concours" polished paint frame I can appreciate it BUT it's not restored as original. It's over restored.

[caddyshack]

A little off topic, but maybe someone could comment. I have a 69 SS Chevelle convert with 23,000 actual miles, and my biggest concern for future judging purposes is the dealer furnished undercoating. In late 68 when purchased new, the dealer recommended that a "Zeibart" undercoating would protect the auto from salt applied to roads during our MN winters. I have the original purchase agreement, and it was listed under dealer installed or provided options. Don't really want to remove the undercoating, but would this be a points deduction based on who provided it?

Thanks

[MCHinson]

If it was factory authorized as a dealer installed accessory, it will be fine. If it was not factory authorized, it could be a problem.

If I were you, I would try to find documentation of it being factory authorized. Even if not, I would keep a photocopy of the original purchase agreement with the car to document it being dealer installed.

[Guest Twilight Fenrir]

I don't know, maybe it's because I'm just starting my classic car journey, but a fully-restored perfect car, by any standards, just doesn't appeal to me. I think cars have an individual character from the life they've had. I like imperfections, within reason. I like my old cars looking old. That's what makes them interesting to me.

Of course, I'm going to work on them all, and get them as good as I am personally able to... Minus painting, I painted one of my El Camino's... never again... I'll pay someone to do that bit I'll never win a trophy, but I'll enjoy them that much more for it.

Just my $.02

[paulrhd29nz]

First of I am new to this AACA site and I cant believe I have missed it all these years. I love what you guys talk about and follow most of the topics here with great interest.

I have been a pre war car guy all my life thanks to my dad.

When I see a car, a car no matter what the make, style or year, and if it is sooo shinny and sooo perfict in every way... I will walk right by it!!!!!!

In my experiance, the " perfict restored car " was restored ( 9 out of 10 times) by someone other than the owner!!! meaning they got bucks and clean finger nails!

I have a freind who, in the early 80's won the most sought after award by the jaguar club, west coast, "best restored". That car today has driven less than a mile since then!! Its to worth to much money. He did nothing but shell out the bucks. What a waste of a fun car.

I am a total believer in "period correct" for the preservation of our wounderfull hobbie for future generations to show people" this was how they did it, But I am sad to say that most of the grand cars are, or have been restored for nothing but money and pride.

When a car came from the factory it was ment for one thing..... DRIVE IT!!!!!

Paul

[Guest Twilight Fenrir]

When a car came from the factory it was ment for one thing..... DRIVE IT!!!!!

Paul

Absolutely agree! If a car is not driven, I scarcely could call it a car. It's just a big ornament for a tow truck

[Guest]

Absolutely agree! If a car is not driven, I scarcely could call it a car. It's just a big ornament for a tow truck

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, as one of the guys featured on the series " Dream Car Garages" on HGTV said; Some people collect art. I just happen to collect rolling art that lives in the garage. A mighty fine mansion in Brentwood Ca. with stables of Italian rolling art. This guy does drive them though. When he has parties the guest usually end up in the garage.

Don

BTW, this was not the series shown on Speed called Dream Car Garage.

[Shop Rat]

If it was factory authorized as a dealer installed accessory, it will be fine. If it was not factory authorized, it could be a problem.

If I were you, I would try to find documentation of it being factory authorized. Even if not, I would keep a photocopy of the original purchase agreement with the car to document it being dealer installed.

Matt is correct that if you can find documentation that the factory, not the dealer because many would hang all sorts of items on vehicles to make the buyer happy, authorized the Ziebart undercoating that will take care of any deductions with the exception of the condition of the undercoating.

If it was installed on the authority of only the dealer it would have to be removed to avoid a deduction. Or leave it and accept that it will be deducted for. Only the owner can decide that.