Commentary: Over Restored?

[W_Higgins]

In my view the allowances for what's referred to as "over-restoration" are a shame because they encourage wiping out details that are historically significant. In many cases it is much easier to put a slick-as-glass finish on something than to make it the way it was.

At the moment I'm working on a horseless carriage and, while the finish materials will be modern automotive finishes, the components will be redone in a correct fashion. High finishes were possible with the oil and varnish finishes they were using at the time. They weren't necessarily durable, but they could be made to glitter (look for photos of high-end carriages from the same era). It's things like rough castings and differential housings that have a finish equal to that of the body that really push it over the top. If you have something that was originally just a painted rough casting and is now badly rust pitted, it is difficult to work that out and create a piece with its original appearance. However, when you see cars with the underside of the frame and the cylinder jugs polished out, that's just nuts.

This particular car has a near identical twin that has just been "restored" elsewhere and it is gorgeous. The entire thing is color sanded and polished throughout -- every bracket and component. For a car that was $1,200 when it was new, it would be a $12,000 car if it had been finished that way at the time.

In the process things like draw marks on the stamped pieces and parting lines on castings were wiped out. All of these things are a record of how each component was made and what techniques were available at the time. Fortunately, the owner of this car loves that sort of thing and wants to make an effort to really restore it as close as is reasonably possible. Someday these two cars might be parked next to each other and the "over-restored" car will probably win, depending on venue, but this guy is in it for his own satisfaction rather than satisfying a particular clubs judging standards so he can put a trophy on his shelf. At the end of the day he knows his car is a living record that can be passed onto the next generation, and the glittering jewel is a representation of a world that never was.

[caddyshack]

Well stated Walter. I have an original, very early 04 Cadillac that has been the topic of many conversations concerning restoration or leaving original. Since the car is 107 years old, the markings on the body wood, castings, tanks, etc. all show evidence of early craftmanship. A friend of mine borrowed the water storage tank to use as a pattern and the scribe marks were still evident after all these years. I have been reluctant to restore this vehicle for the very reasons you describe. Good luck on your projects and thanks for the comments.

[W_Higgins]

Since the car is 107 years old, the markings on the body wood, castings, tanks, etc. all show evidence of early craftmanship. A friend of mine borrowed the water storage tank to use as a pattern and the scribe marks were still evident after all these years.

Bingo, that's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. This car I'm working on is 104 years old and it was "restored" once. It's different from your car in that regard. Your car is in a whole different class since it hasn't been touched (the saying "it's only original once" comes to mind).

With this car the previous "restoration" is now as old as the car itself was the first time around, which is not uncommon with a centenarian. The standards were different then, so what we know can be corrected is, and other things have been lost, but it's still being done within the proper context based on known standards from the time and being able to look at other unrestored examples. Through paint analysis we know this particular car's original color now, so there are ways. Things like this aren't always within everyone's grasp and that's alright, it's just that I find it discouraging when the standards of the various clubs don't reward saving details, and in fact even encourage looking the other way on "over-restoration" which more often than not is taking the easy way out.

[MCHinson]

DriveAG,

Personally I like the fact that my Model A Ford is a Senior Grand National winner, but I still drive it. I enjoy touring in the car and then I enjoy working on it to bring it back into the best condition that I can to prepare it for showing.

The touring is my personal favorite... but I also enjoy the challenge of trying to maintain it in as good a condition as possible for shows.

Not too many people are crazy enough to try to do both, but I am. It is sort of interesting to see people's reaction to a Grand National Senior Badge on a car on a Tour.

[GrayCav56]

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

I yanked it off my 69 SS 396 and am now doing the same with my 66 GTO that got the Rusty Jones treatment. I feel for you brother. It is a long, involved and messy process. But when you are done it looks very nice.

From what I understand the factory put a bit of sound deadener/rust prevention in and around the wheel wells, but not nearly to the extent of what the Ziebart type rustproofing provided.

I recommend working from the outside in. What I mean is that AACA judges do not crawl all the way under your vehicle, rather they get down and peek from a kneeling position. Start removing your undercoating in that manner, working from the framerails in from the sides and the gas tank forward. You can't see above the driveshaft or transmission or above the rear axle from the judge's vantage point, so you could save that for last.

My GTO has coating on everything underneath. EV..ER..Y..THING! Pans, frame, fuel lines, brake lines, brackets, back sides of red inner fender liners, you name it. It's a joy to release the beauty of the undercarriage from it's LaBrea Tar Pits.

Be advised you may also have some added holes that were drilled to allow for the rustproofing wands, especially in the door rocker panels. If they are there, you may have some other issues to deal with in repairing the damage and repainting. In that case you may determine the point gain is minimal and put your efforts onto discrepancies that can more easily be rectified for the same benefit.

[Guest Silverghost]

I agree with everything Walter & some others have stated here~~~

A car should be respected for the way it was originally built~~~flaws ~~~warts and all. Far too many original things are lost on these better-than-new Jewel like restorations ! We should all strive to preserve a car's true original history~~~The way it really was~~~Not what we had wished it had been !

My biggest beef is using today's very glossy basecoat-clearcoat systems that make a car sparkle !

The second beef I have is detailing the black painted parts under the hood , and on the chassis & suspension with very glossy black paint !

Powdercoating is my third beef !

Many a great well-preserved museum piece has sadly transformed into some glowing showcar~~~

As stated before~~~

A car is only original once~~~

If you change it to "Improve it" it is no longer an original example of the factory's intent and workmanship !

That's just my opinion !

Henry Austin "Austie" Clark a note early auto collector, museum owner/operator, and old friend of Dad & myself, once owned hundreds, if not a thousand old cars in his lifetime. He saved hundreds of old cars for us all to enjot today. He respected these old cars for their true real history~~~

Many cars sat in his fantastic LI New York museum without any cosmetic restoration~~~

He often told Dad & I that it would indeed be a crime to totally "Restore" them !

I agree with our great old late friend Austie~~~

I like a car to be exactly as original~~~

That's just what I like~~~

We need to preserve more true auto rolling history !

Edited February 10, 2011 by Silverghost (see edit history)

[Ron Green]

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

Many times undercoating was either dealer or factory provided as an option. Since your Chevelle was done by "Zeibart" the only evidence of this would the plugs since the factory or dealer typically didn't do inside the doors, jams, etc. They really didn't want the vehicles to last forever.

If undercoating was available from the factory you have 2 choices:

Spend eternity removing it or, remove all the surface dirt and clean it up as best as you can and reshoot it with the newer type undercoating, which looks exactly like the original however it is somewhat hard not soft. I elected to do the latter and the car has 4 grand national seniors to date along with a bunch of other top awards, plus the undercoating has made it scary quite when cruising.

[caddyshack]

Appreciate all the feedback. The thought of removing the undercoating sounds very costly. When we thaw out up here (which may not be until June), I will give it a good inspection. Thanks again for the comments, they are very helpful.

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

A bit of a warning about "OLD" undercoating. As it ages it will dry out and crack. those little cracks and the drying out may or will create water traps leading to rusting issues one cannot see. No one ever anticipated that an undercoated car would be surviving beyond five to ten years and therefor just didn't care about the long term consequences.

With some "OLD" undercoating there is another issue if attempting to remove it. It is not unusual for cars undercoated before 1970 to have undercoating which contained asbestos and that makes removal a potentially a major health hazard issue, though the asbestos was/is entrapped in some sort of tar like material.

There are people in the business of providing blasting services who are qualified to deal with this asbestos issue safely, as well as disposing of the residue in a proper manner. Personal take on "OLD" undercoating is to get rid of it as soon as practical before it causes problems. If one is dead set on attempting to remove it themselves they should take adequate safety measures to insure they, or friends and family members are not exposed to any asbestos dust. It is a killer once it enters the lungs, plain and simple.

Jim

[poci1957]

Hi caddyshack, if I were making this decision I think it would come down to how much other work was going to be performed. If you are doing a full restoration it should be removed since everything will be stripped anyway. If you are NOT doing that much work I would just leave it alone and take the deduction. Removing it is a mess and hard to do without damaging anything from either heat or scrapeing.

[Shop Rat]

A caution about removing old undercoating, wear good googles to do so, not just glasses or safety glasses. Bill didn't do that despite my plea to him to wear them. His comment to me was, "I have my glasses on, it will be okay".

Then he comes in the house to have me call our eye doctor because Bill got several small pieces of the undercoating, rusty metal residue and dirt into his eyes and he couldn't get it to flush out. (Someone here said that "stupid should hurt" and his eyes HURT. )

So a forty mile round trip later, a couple of hours of our time, having to have his eyes numbed and the pieces carefully removed and a trip to the pharmacy to get antibiotic eye drops later he hopefully has learned his lesson. It all could have been avoided had he just worn the safety goggles like I asked him to.

I still remind him just incase when he heads out to work on vehicles.

[Sweepspear]

I don't care much myself for the restored cars that have all the paint dabs, and chalk marks replicated.

They often look too deliberately applied. Too neat compared to the weary line worker who was marking cars day in, day out.

To each their own though.

[Guest Skyking]

Last summer I went to look at a local 1957 Metropolitan that was advertised on Ebay. The seller had it in a showroom with some expensive foreign cars. It was an original car that sat in a garage since 1962. The only things that were not original were the tires & battery. I looked down the sides of this car and couldn't believe the body waves in the panels. This is the way these inexpensive cars were built. I guess you could call my Mets over restored because when I performed the bodywork I got the panels lazer straight. I couldn't get myself to paint over wavy panels. On the other hand, if I had bought that Met, it would've had to stay original, waves and all.

[Guest Skyking]

A caution about removing old undercoating, wear good googles to do so, not just glasses or safety glasses.

I just noticed today that Eastwood sells an undercoating remover in aerosol cans. Softens it to remove easily. $11.99 a can.

[ted sweet]

what would the point deduction be for the undercoating assuming its in real good condition???

[MCHinson]

Difficult to answer. There could be points taken in several different areas, assuming the undercoating covers multiple components.

If it was just on the frame and no other components, I would offer the opinion that it would be a maximum of 5 points, as the frame is a maximum 5 point area. Assuming the undercoating totally covered the frame, and you could not see any frame, I would say it could be a 5 point deduction. I doubt you would find undercoating totally covering the frame, but there are other components that could possibly also be covered and potentially subject to additional deductions, i.e. brake lines, fuel lines, body bolts... Then again, there is another 5 point area of "under carriage".... not sure exactly how to intrepret that.

So, I guess my personal opinion is about 5 points maximum... but can't really say without looking at it to see exactly what it covered.

[msmazcol]

I'm not giving a view on the undercoating debate, but, just FYI soda blasting is the cleanest, neatest, and most "green" way to remove undercoating. It is amazing in this application. It will also remove the paint at the same time as well but can't be any worse that the chemical strip and scrap methods.

With a careful application by a reliable shop the underside can look clean as a whistle ready for paint and detail. No hours of scraping needed.

Edited February 14, 2011 by msmazcol (see edit history)

[Restorer32]

I can't imaging how soda blasting would remove undercoating. Undercoating is even dificult to remove by sandblasting. Not that I don't believe you, just can't visualize it.

[stock_steve]

I've had pretty decent luck getting old undercoating off of my '70 VW Bug's underside, using a heat gun and hard plastic scraper.

The key (for me anyway) was to follow all of that up with a degreaser chemical wipe. It transformed the nasty "scraped-looking" areas to nice, even looking paint...

[msmazcol]

I would have not believed it had I not seen it. One of our local shops Stowe Auto Body specializes in soda and sand as well. Don't ask me how but it works. The sand blasting has a tendency to generate heat. This only pounds the sand into the undercoating. The soda removes it clean.

Check out Stowe Auto Body's web site or contact Tom and he can better explain it.

Lockport, IL

[critterpainter]

Going back to the picture with the original post. I have owned a 65 Mustang since 74 and I didn't use a cutting torch to modify the towers so I could grease the upper a-arms. I bought the correct 90 degree grease fittings and installed them in 1976 to grease the front end. I have seen many Fords with the holes cut in them and many with 90 degree grease fittings installed. IMHO the person that used the cutting torch was a lazy mechanic when the car was 5-8 years old. It kind of goes back to "you get what you pay for" even when getting the car greased.

Bill

[Guest Amilcar1926]

Decades ago I was a confirmed 'purist', however with maturity, I have come to embrace 'period authentic' as my mantra. Accessories and mild personalization have always been at the core of motor car ownership. Some of the petty arguments, ...which way the bolt went through an assembly, etc., now are sources of humour when I watch the marque 'experts' expound at shows/meets.

Paul

1926 Amilcar

'28,'30,35,'36,'39 Austin 7s

'39 Bantam

'51,'52,'53 MGTDs

'78 Nova

[sambarn]

I like to think i try not to over restore but definitely try to build trailer queens until they when their grand national and then drive the snot out of 'em. best of both worlds IMHO. make it as new as possible then experience the gamut of maintenance, wear and tear on the vehicle as well as how well they drive.

[Guest]

Decades ago I was a confirmed 'purist', however with maturity, I have come to embrace 'period authentic' as my mantra. Accessories and mild personalization have always been at the core of motor car ownership.

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

Does period authentic mean whatever was on the option list for your car is OK when restoring and showing a car instead of what was on the build sheet? Then it is possible to build a Pontiac GTO out of 1964-1965 LeMans because GTO's were a option on the LeMans? The vin tags on those years all say LeMans as the GTO dosen't become a series of their own until 1966, and this goes for a Olds 442 because they don't become a series until 1968. Is it OK to put a 4speed stick in a automatic car because a 4speed was a option? What is good for one option should be good for all options. Are those the rules these days?:confused:

Don

Edited February 24, 2011 by helfen (see edit history)

[Guest Amilcar1926]

Don-

No, my comment was with regard to limiting a car to what was available from the factory, as opposed to what you could add from your local speed shop and/or accessory supplier (Zumbach, Eastwood,Arnolt, etc.).

As to the GTO-LeMans conversions, my MGTD MKII is a real one, while you could go out and get the bits to convert a standard TD, it wouldn't be a MKII.

If you wanted to replicate the build sheet for your car, if in fact it is the original one, is a fine approach and as admirable as any other. Just a matter of choice. Your stick/auto question is about cars far newer than mine. I would say if it was available AT THE TIME, then so be it. At the end of the day it is my/your car.

Soon it will be top down weather.

Paul

[1957Birdman]

As I understand the AACA judging rules, it is all about the way your particular car could have come from the factory, not how it actually did come from the factory. I other words, it is possible to have a car that wins a Senior award and yet is not a "numbers matching" car. For example, the '57 Ford featured in the current issue of the AACA magazine probably left the factory with a "Mileage Maker" 6 cyl. engine. The owner chose to restore it with the supercharged 312 CID engine that it could have had, but most likely didn't. It is an AACA award winning car, but most likely the numbers don't match.

This is something to consider if you buy an AACA award winning car made after 1950. I personally think that deviations from the build sheet, especially using different engines, affect the value of the car.

[Guest]

Paul, Lew, what you are saying is; because a GTO option package and a 4sp stick are both on the option list for a LeMans in 1964-65 then it's ok to create a GTO from a LeMans. They both fit into the same category, they are both on the rt hand side of the window sticker called options.

Don

Edited February 24, 2011 by helfen (see edit history)

[1957Birdman]

Don,

Yes, that is what we are saying. AACA does not care if your car came that way from the factory, just that it could have been ordered that way. So, if you "clone" a 1964 GTO from a Tempest there wouldn't be any point deduction in an AACA show as long as everything in the car was correct and you could back it up with the correct documentation. I'm pretty sure that if you showed the same car at a Pontiac-Oakland Club meet there would be deductions since the car wasn't orginially a GTO. It is just a difference in philosophy. I don't know that for sure in the case of Pontiac, but that is the case when a dual 4 barrel engine is put in a '57 T-Bird that was ordered as a single four barrel. It can be easily checked by looking at the VIN number. It would not have deductions at an AACA meet, but would at a Classic Thunderbird Club meet.

[Paul Dobbin]

When we display our cars, they all have signs telling what they are with prices when new as equipped, minor performance statistics and the words:

"Restored to good used car condition by the owner, Used for fun and touring with other antique car enthusiasts."

This means, like me they have some character and are less than perfect but still useful.

[tbirdman]

A caution about removing old undercoating, wear good googles to do so, not just glasses or safety glasses. Bill didn't do that despite my plea to him to wear them. His comment to me was, "I have my glasses on, it will be okay".

Then he comes in the house to have me call our eye doctor because Bill got several small pieces of the undercoating, rusty metal residue and dirt into his eyes and he couldn't get it to flush out. (Someone here said that "stupid should hurt" and his eyes HURT. )

So a forty mile round trip later, a couple of hours of our time, having to have his eyes numbed and the pieces carefully removed and a trip to the pharmacy to get antibiotic eye drops later he hopefully has learned his lesson. It all could have been avoided had he just worn the safety goggles like I asked him to.

I still remind him just incase when he heads out to work on vehicles.

I just bought a cheap pair of digital calipers from Harbor Freight. Warning on the box said to use googles. I wondering what they think we are measuring:D

[Scotts_DG8]

My thoughts on what I understood the original question to be is:

When restoring a vehicle the mechanics and presentation should be representative of that that was available as delivered from the factory for that specific year/make/model. I know of the performance limitation that exist with the majority of these vehicles if comparing to or taking into consideration the technical advances that we have made through the years to date. I have what I believe to be two good examples and the one, a ’68 Dart GTS, happens to be a muscle car which correlates to the original posting and the second would be my ’69 Dodge A100 van which I’ll skip in this discussion. Now the ’68 Dart GTS came from the factory with its original 383 engine (which will be used), 4 speed transmission along with 4 wheel drum brakes, point style voltage regulator and a dual point distributor. My choice in restoring this car will be to retain all of the obsolete, by today’s standards, technologies (drum brakes, point style voltage regulator and the dual point distributor) as it left the factory. Now as far as the cosmetics go; I have retained the original body color but have elected to go with a black vinyl top as opposed to the original factory green vinyl top, I have also elected to go with a white interior as opposed to the original green interior. Also, as a technical reference perspective and a parts and service source I have maintained a subscription to Mopar Muscle for several years now. It has numerous technology and performance enhancements advertised throughout along with the numerous reproduced trim items that I can see and understand the appeal for if one was building a daily performance driver. I would classify the persons that are interested in purchasing/utilizing these items though as being more enthusiasts. I also believe that these enthusiasts exist through the romantic marketing of the vintage cars and the realization that in stock form they would not perform or live up to what the current driver experience expects. Hence, they build to admire the style of the car while enhancing the technology to take advantage of today’s ride, performance and stability.

Again, to clarify these observations and comments are based on my personal point of view. And regarding the comment/question on modifying a year/make/model into another model available from the factory through the addition/deletion of comparable year/make engine/transmission/trim items I am ok with this as long as it is openly represented for what it is. My rational for this thinking is no different than others in that to purchase/own an original example can be cost prohibitive where as a “clone” can be affordable. My best example would be the following; I’ve always had a passion for a ’68 Ford Mustang Fastback which are crazy hard to come by. A company, Dynacorn International, reproduces a complete year/body style of this car. If money were no object I would build from scratch a “factory fresh” version of what I would have ordered back in the day with all the original technology and trim available for the time. I think that pretty much recaps my point of view on this topic for now. Scott...

[Guest Amilcar1926]

Let me preface my last comment with I am new to this forum, as I come from VSCC,VSCCA, 750 Club, etc., which are more geared to use than static show. While I have baked in the sun at a few shows, most of my activites over the years have been race/rally. As a result my approach is keeping it running, within the contexy of the time it was built. An example being the fitment of a Marshall J75 blower to my matching number MGTD MKII. They did not come from the factory with one, but it is in period and could have been a dealer install. I detest trailer queens, as more often than not the owners did little or nothing to get the car to the condition it is in, except write a check, (no sweat/blood equity). Love to be parked next to them and let the kids climb into my cars, toot the horn play wwith the wheel, etc. That was how I came to know the cars. Not much fun staring at it from 20'. Highly reccomend everyone come to the VSCCA sponsored Sptingfield (MA) Vintage Grand Prix this summer. It will be the first running of the event and you will get to see cars that you won't see at the Lion's Club show (no disrespect) and they will be at speed. Paul

[Guest Amilcar1926]

Correction to my last post, the race is in Springfield, Mass.

Paul