Over Restoration

[Guest brh]

I was reading a thread, covering inner fender color. I know there are many subjects we all continue to bring up and discuss. My question is, has anyone lost points on "over restoration"? If so what was the issue? This is kind of a gray area, from too much metal flake in the correct color paint to gloss black versus semi. Seems to me "over restoration" needs a definition. Just my 2.

[Bhigdog]

Probably too subjective. Over restoration is like pornography. It can't be defined but you know it when you see it. And like porn, some like it some don't.

As for myself I'll over restore in that I'll try to make my cars look like the designers and engineers envisioned them rather than how the line workers put them together..........Bob

Edited March 14, 2011 by Bhigdog (see edit history)

[JZRIV]

Sorry for the long post but you asked and there is no simple response.

Yes its a subjective topic but I think there is some defintion even if its not put in black and white ini the judging manual. Some levels of over restoration are widely accepted in all but the high level concourse shows. It simply goes against human nature to restore a car and intentionally do sloppy work like was done on the assembly line back in the day. With production deadlines and cost constraints, making every piece fit and look perfectly just wasn't high priority. The car had to look good long enough while sitting on the lot to be sold. If things started rusting in areas not normally seen it didn't matter.

Keep in mind I'm not a judging expert but until one chimes in, I'll provide my 2 cents with some examples. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Not including exterior paint, if you attempt to paint something the same color it was from the factory generally, you will be OK even if its a slight shade off. If your inner fender was originally black, and you paint it red because thats what kind of paint you had in the cupboard, you will lose points. It is usually safer to paint undersides and inners satin or semi gloss black if you are not sure or can't find out how it was originally painted. The best method is to research what the finish was originally and try to get close to it if you are concerned about losing points.

A good example is underhood black. I've seen many painted shiny gloss black. It looks really nice but because of the major shine difference vs semi-gloss, it can cause a loss of points. If underhood is painted satin instead of semi-gloss, that difference will not cause a loss of points because they are considered close enough. If it was just a one small bracket or two painted gloss vs semi it probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow but because there is so much black under the hood, everything being gloss makes it really jump out as incorrect.

If we media blast a typical chassis or engine bracket, hang it on a wire, prime it, maybe fill some pits, and final paint it the correct color, its going to look much better than the original did even before the car left the factory. Often no primer was used and the paint was applied by dipping the part. If there were blisters, drips, dirt or places paint didn't stick it did not stop the production line. So technically painting a chassis or engine bracket using good workmanship is over restored but......will not cause a point loss. Thats the way Buick would have done it if not constrained by cost and time.

Another good example is on some cars, the fuel pumps didn't get fully painted. Only sloppy overspray. When restored if the pump is fully painted, it won't cause a point loss.......as long as its the right color. On the flip side some distributors had overspray at the factory, if you leave it bare with no overspray it likely wouldn't cause a loss of points.

If you make all your body panel gaps perfect, thats over restoring because they sure weren't all way. But..... most in their right mind wouldn't do that intentionally and instead would make them as close to perfect as possible and you won't lose points for that....but its over restoring technically.

Here is another good example. The car I am doing now had many chassis parts unpainted from the factory. They would most certainly have started rusting on the car carrier leaving the factory. If I paint these parts I will be over restoring no matter what kind of paint I use. Its borders on insanity to blast off the old rust and leave them unpainted so rust can start again. I painted them with paint that simulates natural steel. Even though its over restored, it will not lose points because it looks close enough. Furthermore the lower extremities of these parts got a very sloppy and inconsistent spattering of black undercoat like material so the rust wouldn't show on the lot. I'm not going to reproduce this sloppy application and its unlikely I would lose points for it.

Hopefully that might clear it up somewhat or at least spur more discussion from folks more knowledgable than I.

In BCA the intent of judges isn't to nitpick so if you keep finishes close to original you'll typically be OK. Its not feasible for judges to know every detail on finish so as long as what most would assume is consistent with the era of car, you'll be OK.

Edited March 14, 2011 by JZRIV (see edit history)

[TxBuicks]

Well put, JZRIV. I couldn't say it better. In my judging days, I would not count off for over-restoration, as long as it was done in good taste and intent.

Section E, Page 2 of the Judges Manual states: "If any judged item is as good as original it should receive no deductions in that category. Of course, if a better quality of workmanship is

found and the vehicle has not been modified in any way from original, then it still receives no deductions."

I have always understood that to mean not to deduct for over-restoration. As long as it meets factory standard (same or better), then it is ok with me.

Edited March 14, 2011 by TxBuicks (see edit history)

[Guest my3buicks]

Also a well said Jason. It's been years since I saw one of your restorations, but I can say with great confidence you know what your doing and talking about!!

[NTX5467]

I believe that one reason "over-restoration" is not deducted for is that such a condition usually results when MORE effort to get things to that point is needed past what the OEM production condition might have been. Therefore, as OEM production condition is what the BCA judging standard is supposed to be, rewards for going past that will not be forthcoming. The era of the particular vehicle should also be taken into consideration, too!

While there might not be any standards for OEM production restoration and over-restoration, "The Standard" is how your particular vehicle was built . . . which might not be exactly like another vehicle of that model and year. In some cases, there were variations from shift to shift and/or plant to plant. While there might be some standards as to panel fits and paint quality, other issues might be different (as in paint inspection marks or "daubs" or grease pencil/chalk marks to indicate some part of the vehicle's build passed a particular inspection successfully. Knowing what was generally correct would mean that when the vehicles were new, people did notice these things back then and therefore, know to look for them today in completely correct restorations--unfortunately, much of these "dirty or sloppy things" are removed by restorers and not reproduced for the final product, in their desire to make things look nicer than they originally might have been.

This leads us to "What is correct for YOUR vehicle", which can vary from what is correct for other similar vehicles and even a vehicle of the next or prior model year. This is why you take extensive pictures of your vehicle BEFORE you commence the restoration process, plus take notes of any inspection marks (and evidence of marks which age deteriorated) and unknown paint colors (when the original paint is deteriorated or faded, looking under bolt heads and similar rather than relying on "experts" at vendors, which can lead to some judging discussions at national meets, as in the past).

As mentioned, some chassis parts might be "natural" or "as cast" rather than painted. This can vary from model year to model year. IF you want things to be accurate, then "as cast" (either reproduced via cleaned and clear-coated or a combination of paints to mimic that effect) would be appropriate. In other situations, a mix of paint and bare metal might have been used on the original parts. Remember that all of these items were painted quickly rather than to be "show quality", so there might be some thin places--same with exterior nameplates, too.

The subject of "over-spray" is a big one. Where such is correct and where it was not correct, for example. Whether on the engine or on the underbody of the car, for example. There ARE places where it is correct and places it shouldn't be on ANY vehicle. Again, carefully cleaning and documentation is important. Typically, I suspect, all of the vehicle bodies were painted according to a particular procedure, so one thing which might be as standardized as panel fits would be "over-spray" and where it was. The use of sound deadening undercoat would be similar, but could vary from lower trim levels to the higher trim levels of particular models.

Whenever we restore vehicles, the natural inclination is to "Make it nicer than it was originally", whether that's through smoooother exterior paint finishes, more correct panel fits and alignments, or cleaning up the runs in the various sealers for weatherstrips. Nothing wrong with these basic functions. But where I do NOT like to see over-restoration is in places where it's obvious . . . incorrect gloss on engine components and other underhood areas, which seems to be the most common indiscretion from my observations. Putting shiney paint where the manufacturer never intended for it to be, regardless of which manufacturer built the vehicle.

Even if you look at current production vehicles, you'll find that the finish in the door jambs and on the undersides of the hoods and deck lids, or the (generally) non-outer areas of other panels have a somewhat grainy texture to their paint . . . as if that final coat of clear-coat didn't get there . . . unlike 1960s cars which had shiney paint in those areas, albeit with a greater possibility of sags and runs. It's more about getting a "decent" finish in those areas rather than "show quality", it appears.

On some cars, the core supports are painted body color and then have some flatter black paint (somewhat sloppily, in some cases . . . or rather "no real care taken, just get the color on it") applied over the body color to help accent the colors in the grilles and such. Not duplicating that black color not being there would be incorrect, resulting in point deductions. This might be more applicable to later model vehicles rather than earlier ones.

In the realm of "other" car shows, the general public generally likes to see over-restored underhood and frame areas on vehicles, rather than OEM-correct items . . . key word "general public". Therefore, when they use the over-restored vehicle as "the standard", the correctly-restored vehicle naturally becomes "something less". To me, this is something that judges need to be attuned to when they judge vehicles with the OEM orientation as "the standard".

I fully understand the desire to "make it better", but I have observed that to do a painfully-accurate restoration, it generally takes even more effort to do it that way than to "over-restore" a vehicle. More effort to ensure that all finishes and such are exactly correct and "as intended by the manufacturer." I remember reading an account of a national Mustang club show a while back. The author of the article had restored his Mustang "to spec", including bare metal being bare metal (no clear-coat allowed!). During the judging, light rain started to fall. They cringed at the thought of surface rust on their fresh bare metal parts, but took comfort in that they weren't the only ones in that situation.

In many cases, factory builds were not as good as they should have been. Be it in the areas of panel fits, paint finish, carpet/trim fits, or other areas of assembly. Some judging standards require these things to be exactly duplicated, whereas others might deduct points for the same things. Just depends upon which game you desire to engage in! IF (key word) those that see these things know they are correct, then all is well in the judging area, but if someone else might see these same things, they might consider them to be "poor workmanship" or "They didn't get the job he paid for". A variable situation.

Everybody has their own orientations on these things, which I fully respect.

Just some (well, many) thoughts . . .

NTX5467

[Thriller]

Generally, over restoration is considered where more modern materials / methods are used. Exterior paint (base coat / clear coat) and plating (show chrome) are probably the most common.

Beyond that, I think there gets to be some disagreement. It seems to me the BCA has stated that gloss level underhood doesn't matter. I don't like that. I mean, I can buy rust protective paint, as an example, in flat, satin / semi-gloss, and high gloss. If the satin or semi-gloss is correct, with otherwise the same paint formulation, I have trouble understanding how it could be considered over restoration rather than non-authentic. While slightly silly, I could go to the parts store and get different types of clamps...however, if I put on a better hose clamp so the car doesn't leak antifreeze, that is incorrect and a deduction. So, I struggle with why you can do that with paint, but not hard parts.

As others have noted, body panel alignment tends to be better on a restored car than original. Also, better materials may be used, for instance in weatherstripping.

I too would like things better defined, ideally by consensus, but I don't expect that ideal to be met.

[Guest brh]

Got nailed on the hose clamps too, but I don't really have a problem with that as I understand the concept of how it was built for that year. I can see if there was an obvious over restoration, like a chrome bracket and such, getting points off. But has anyone gotten points off on an over restoration? Or know of anyone? I'm not gonna run over to my Buick and make changes, I just want to know from all the discussions if this has happened.

[buick5563]

My inner fenders are on the glossy side of semi-gloss and I didn't get dinged. The white I chose to use on my car is too bright and I didn't have points taken off for that either. I had an incorrect battery and that got a point taken off. The real key to placing highly if that is what you want to do is making sure the details are correct... MUCH more than sheens and shades, and whitewall widths when it comes down to a half inch. Small things add up to large deductions. Make sure your car is clean on the underside! Rubber valve stem caps. Proper hose clamps. Unpainted fender bolts. Correct batteries. No damn flex or red heater or radiator hoses!!! I totally get Derek's point about high gloss being wrong. I disagreed with him the first time he said it, but it does make sense to me now.

I love Jason's point about being insane to blast a part then letting it rust again just because it was unprotected from the factory.

Also Bhigdog's post is spectacular in my opinion.

[1957buickjim]

Mike, I agree with you on Bhigdog's post. Excellent analogy and point regarding the vision versus the actual.

Not having a car yet judged, yet being able to discuss this on the forum is really great for getting the details ironed out. And yes, it seems that it about the details, but not the Details. NTX5467 and Jason make excellent cases and points and reasons on how and why we do the things we do to and for the cars we dote on. I am going to Nationals this year and I am fretting over how and what to do to get my car judged. It is really all in the BCA Judging Manual as to how it will be judged against what standard. The real issue is that your car is like a term paper, you have to do the research to get a good grade on it, and some people are better at research than others and get better grades. All cars are being judged on their own merit vs. the "universal factory vehicle" which is a wonderful approach to judging. It is, by a majority, an objective method to judge a vehicle for correctness, and helps one to understand details that may have not been known about your car.

We have to remember, that this is a hobby for the majority of us, and the judging is a mechanism for acceptance among our peers. Over-restoration, i.e, using bhigdog's explanation, of the vehicle designer' and engineers visions, might be what the answer is.

Thats my 2 cents worth..

[BUICK RACER]

The first time I heard 'over restored' was from the Late Great Ken Liska, I think it was at the National in Atlanta in 1994! That's when the Buick Driving Enthusiasts Division was formed, and the first Division in the BCA!(Buicks were meant to be Driven)

Ken had restored a '53 Roadmaster Convertible and was sort of an expert on many models, having later done a '30 Buick, and several others.

When the restored cars were pushed out of their boxes(trailers) in the middle of the night, and had no fluids or anyway to even run, there was the proof that the BCA was then and still promotes 'over restoration'!

Our favorite guy is Doug Seybold, does awesome work, and we nicknamed him "overrestored"!!!

We just had a Michigan BCA Chapter meeting last Saturday and the overwhelming theme was "we want to drive our Buicks", what else are they good for if you don't enjoy them now, so the next person might!?!!

[NTX5467]

On the issue of "bolts" . . . you HAVE to know what GM used and where, plus matching flat or star or regular lock washers, if appropriate. Many times, they were flange-head bolts rather than what you'll find at the hardware store. ALL of these things used to be available from GM, via the Standard Parts Catalog, but in more modern times, that might not be the case as it was 30 years ago. Only "hitch" is that some of them had a minimum order quantity of 100.

By observation, many restoration vendors don't do correct bolts, using cad-plated normal-head "hardware store" bolts rather than the correct anti-corrosion coated flanged head bolts, for example. Therefore, just because you might purchase a bolt kit from a restoration vendor will NOT mean that everything in it will be completely correct (although the kits might be advertised as such). Similar with paint colors and shades, too. Back to that "research" issue, it seems.

I understand the orientation of correct hose clamps (UNLESS a worm-drive clamp could have been a "fleet" option for the particular vehicle), but most of the correct clamps are now available via the restoration industry (even if they might not be listed in a "BUICK" catalog, but possibly for Chevy use, for example). We might not have liked the wire or tower clamps when they were new, replacing them with the worm-drive clamps as a matter of normal maintenance upgrades, but that can be a more glaring and obvious change to a Judge than using incorrect gloss paint in the underhood area (although that really should be as correct as it can be, anyway!).

I remember when "restoration", to the common person when such things became popular in the 1980s, consisted of freshened/replaced upholstery, new paint, overhauled engine (or at least a valve job and tune-up), and new tires. By that definition, anything more is "over-restoration"? That was also back when only the Corvette or '57 Chevy people worried about any kind of "numbers match" or correct casting numbers, etc. Look at things now!

Enjoy!

NTX5467

Edited March 15, 2011 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[1957buickjim]

Spot on NTX5467!

[Thriller]

Got nailed on the hose clamps too, but I don't really have a problem with that as I understand the concept of how it was built for that year. I can see if there was an obvious over restoration, like a chrome bracket and such, getting points off. But has anyone gotten points off on an over restoration? Or know of anyone? I'm not gonna run over to my Buick and make changes, I just want to know from all the discussions if this has happened.

You are not supposed to. However, that brings us back to the question of defining over-restoration. For something like a chrome bumper, the problem may actually start to become one of being correctly restored...I can't say I remember any of my cars when they were new, but according to everything I've heard, the chrome on bumpers was shiny, but not perfect. With so many on the show field having the "show chrome", I wonder if it is possible for someone with a basic chrome job which would be correct to get dinged since it is a different colour, less shiny, whatever, when compared to the others. BCA judging is supposed to be against a standard, not comparing the cars to each other, but if all the others you have to look at are a step above, I'd be concerned about it.

Paint is a similar thing...we have way better paint now than the '50s / '60s. If 9 cars being judged have new BC/CC flawless paint, and the tenth has original enamel or laquer, or a correct repaint, but isn't as shiny or deep, or the colour doesn't "pop", does the correct car run the risk of deductions because it isn't as "nice" as the over-restored examples? I would hope not, but I am concerned that day may be coming.

The clamps was a deliberately facetious example...it was just something that came to mind.

[Lapham3]

Interesting-out of my area as I just drive/repair my stuff and show doesn't interest. I do think the otherwise 'correct' cars of the day look strange with base/clear and wonder why I've seen so many nailheads painted early 60's Pontiac blue?!

[NTX5467]

Derek, you are correct on the different "colors" of "chrome" plating. The OEMs were usually more "white/silver", whereas current Toyotas seem to have a "blue" tint (which tends to make them look different and better than USA brands' current OEM chrome).

Think of "OEM Chrome plating" as an "adornment" and a "protectant" for the base metal. Not very thick, either. Main thing is that any re-chrome should be smooth and shiney (which can accent any "work" that was done to the base metal), rather than the correct "color" and grainy/not glass smooooth, to me.

One OTHER thing about OEM chrome plating, as on door handles . . . is that if you look at them in the "right light", at an angle, you can see the factory buffing marks. Repros and such will NOT generally have them, by observation. One of those little things you don't think about until you see them and THEN you look for it.

To me, I'd rather see a vehicle that was repainted with the correct materials (which are generally harder to find) than BC/CC modern paints of the correct color. The newer paint systems might "pop" better (IF they were done correctly!!), but that doesn't make them look correct.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[Matt Harwood]

I think the best place to look for guidelines on the concept of "over restoration" might be the Corvette community. For many years, they, too, over-restored their cars. But today there's a growing emphasis on factory correct restorations, flaws and all. I believe some judging systems in the Corvette community now take deductions for over-restoration in some areas such as body alignment and panel prep. For instance, there were bonding seams in most Corvette bodies that were visible when the cars were new, but many restorers "repair" them. Today, the best Corvettes at the highest levels are imperfect, but perfectly imperfect if you get what I'm saying.

I'd also argue that it's vastly more difficult to restore a car with flaws. Perfection is relatively easy, but trying to restore something yet keep it imperfect (yet properly imperfect) is a staggering challenge. Don't make the paint too glossy, don't sand that panel too much, don't take all the waves out of the fiberglass. Wow!

My personal take on restoration is that I want to strive to make the car as the factory would have wanted it to be, given the infinite time and resources that a restorer has. Were there any perfect 1941 Buicks built? Nope. But that doesn't mean that the designers didn't want them to be perfect. Accurate finishes and colors, yes, but I see no reason why they can't be meticulously applied to a perfectly prepped surface, which is surely how they were in the designer's minds.

To incorporate some kind of over-restoration standard into judging must be a monumental task, especially on something that is ultimately subjective. At any factory, there was always a guy who was better at painting than the other guy, right? Some cars were just better right out the door. How do you apply a standard to something that varies so wildly? You could go crazy trying to think about it.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

[JZRIV]

What an excellent bunch of comments on this topic. All very well presented and make sense. I'm starting to re-think some procedures going forward on my current project. Not sure I'll change anything but worth some thought.

I never even considered chrome plating being part of over restoration but it most definitely is.

Matt's comment about the problem of incorporating an over-restoration standard into judging being monumental is right on. I could imagine being part of that process to devlop standards. Adding objectivity to something subjective would undoubtedly be plagued with errors. Then pity the poor judges who have to administer the rules. It'd be enough to make ones head explode. This process is probably best if left to the Vette crowd.

[buick5563]

Along with gold chains.

[Restorer32]

Now that was funny!

[Guest brh]

Its a real pleasure to ask a question and get all this feedback. Since I started this thread I might as well share my thoughts as well. My car is still original, it has its "war wounds" dents, minor rust and poor touch up attempts. But overall its a good looking car still. After all its only original once. I fix stuff when its worn or too old, I do pay attention to what should have been installed on the car versus the way I want it to drive to shows. It has incorrect headlights because the repos are too expensive, same story with the battery. It has radials because I feel its a better tire and safer. Personally, I like untouched originals to someone who has taken a basket and made it into a factory new, or better than factory. I appreciate what it takes to keep em going as well as what it takes to bring one back from the dead. Trailer queens are a different breed, if thats your thing more power to you.

Would I take offense to someone showing their 65 Skylark, with better paint, a detailed engine, restored to the last nut and bolt better than factory? No. Its up to the judge to clarify what is over restored. I think it would be a bit nit picky to nail someone on the level of gloss in black detail under the hood, or say the shade of Buick green was too blue on the engine. The work went into the car to bring it back. I guess what may need to be done is for the BCA to figure out, at what point is it wrong. Just my 2

[stealthbob]

All the finer points that I would make have been made but in the end it all comes down to more of a symbolic issue for me:

A car reaches over restored status once it departs from being eligible as a driver.

Right now where I sit I could not imagine having a fully restored Buick behind me in a box while I drive some Tow-Rig ahead of it. Restore it for the road...to me that's all that matters but I'm new and naive so take it for what its worth I guess.

That being said however there are some exceptions....like I would give a pass to the 54 Landau as it travels from show to show.

Edited March 22, 2011 by stealthbob (see edit history)

[1957buickjim]

Bob, I whole heartedly agree with you! That is exactly what I am trying to do with my car..if you can't drive it because you have now made a trailer queen monument that is worth more than your IRA, then where's the fun..The whole process for me and my way is to make it look like a factory plus job where I can, drive the bejeebers out of it with a big smile and an occasional cigar, and honk at the people who wave at you and your ride.

Take it to a show by driving it there. That is what the car was built for. Look at the reasons that you (collectively - meaning all restorers and car enthusiats) got into the hobby. Enjoy it. You've already left skin, blood (Mike - and some scalp) on bringing your car back to life.

Driving the car is also good for the car, by the way. Seals stay soaked in lubricants, things stay excercised, so to speak.

Just my thoughts again on this interesting subject.

[NTX5467]

Matt is correct about the Corvette "imperfections" being factory equipment . . . UNTIL they got the new plant in Bowling Green and went to BC/CC paint systems.

When we sold a new Corvette in the pre-Bowling Green days, the owner was walked around the car, at the time of delivery, and a list was made of "paint issues" which would be fixed under the factory warranty. Some of the late 1970s Z-28s were done the same way. In both cases, the paint systems were still acrylic lacquer. Even the various pace car versions were treated this way. Finding a Corvette that had some evidence of warranty paint work on it, back then, was somewhat common--even the Pace Car editions, where you would think that originality would have been paramount to the vehicle's ultimate value.

As for "point" judging sheets, the Mopar Nationals used to have (and I suspect still does) a judging sheet with about 1400 points on it. They don't judge hundreds of cars in their Concours Tent, but only about 30 or so. A key difference from the normal judging is that these vehicles are judged by noted experts who know when a nut is incorrect or a retainer is missing. One of my friends discovered that he got dinged for "work marks" on the backside of the rear bumper on his Dodge Daytona wing car (the suggestion was to take some body filler to smooth them out, then some "chrome" paint).

In restoring another friend's Plymouth Superbird, one of our Mopar club members offered up the factory build instructions for the '69 Daytona and the '70 Superbird cars. These instructions noted what was different about how the cars were assembled AND painted in the factory and what happened afterward at the conversion shop. For these two vehicles, there will be factory/conversion shop overspray on the underside of the body . . . and if it's NOT there, it's a point deduction. A then-newer member had a "professionally restored" Superbird and wanted to take it to Mopar Nationals to be judged. He spent about $5K to get the correct stuff duplicated, which the other shop "fixed". After the expert advice of what was correct for those cars, he did get the desired trophy with a now-correctly restored vehicle.

Back to the Corvette issue . . . in the earlier days of fibreglass cars, there obviously were many places where the cars were not perfect (OR as perfect as sheet metal might have been on other vehicles). The novelty of a Corvette, in the earlier days, seemed to override the panel fits and such . . . in some cases, if it the line between the door and fender were not good, you could file them down and repaint it, I suspect. Things got better as time and new body series were introduced, but the "really BIG change" took place with the St. Louis plant closing and being replaced by the Bowling Green plant. If the earlier panels looked not-so-good with normal acrylic lacquer, they surely would have required too much prep to make the newer BC/CC paints look right, so plant processes were obviously upgraded.

Several years ago, I saw a national-level Camaro show that was hosted by the GM Training Center in Warren, MI. The "judge" was methodically going over the car, dictating to an assistant who was entering everything into a laptop computer. At the time the scene was shot, he noted the "incorrect screw in right hand armrest". "Yikes," I thought, "I guess he knows what he's supposed to be looking at!"

Now, it seems that everybody has their "game" for judging standards. Be it from the local peer-judged weekend cruise, indoor car shows, national level club events, or whatever.

Enjoy to the limit of your tolerance level!

NTX5467

[stealthbob]

Enjoy to the limit of your tolerance level!

NTX5467

While I do enjoy reading your thorough posts....you basically summed up in a nutshell, with this one line, how I perceive how one should deal with Judging at any level.

[Thriller]

My personal take on restoration is that I want to strive to make the car as the factory would have wanted it to be, given the infinite time and resources that a restorer has. Were there any perfect 1941 Buicks built? Nope. But that doesn't mean that the designers didn't want them to be perfect. Accurate finishes and colors, yes, but I see no reason why they can't be meticulously applied to a perfectly prepped surface, which is surely how they were in the designer's minds.

Matt - I think this sums things up very well.

Bob - I'll buy you a beer at Broadway's if my boss ever decides he wants to meet me, but I'll have to somewhat disagree on how I feel about driving. I enjoy driving my cars, but when I start to get to the thousand mile range, I seriously have to think about the temporary comforts that Max offers me. Pulling the trailer allows a couple of things - peace of mind that the car is less likely to suffer damage in its travels, same fuel cost give or take, and the creature comforts like a CD changer and A/C. On shorter trips I enjoy driving...three times now I've driven a car about 450 miles to attend the Gopher State spring show (first Sunday of May) in St. Paul, MN. I typically enjoy the trip, but I also typically have some issues on said trip. Generally though, the hauler is for sick cars and long distance trips (and winter storage when you can't get buildings put up in time).

[stealthbob]

Like I said there are exceptions...

You are also traveling with all the family on these long hauls so obviously there is going to be some necessity for modern transport. That being said you do drive your cars to the local shows, if 450 mi can be considered local. Your situation does not fall into the Trailer Queen approach IMHO

Maybe once I get mine all done up and loaded with a large investment I'll have a different viewpoint....I doubt it though.

[Bhigdog]

Like I said there are exceptions...

You are also traveling with all the family on these long hauls so obviously there is going to be some necessity for modern transport. That being said you do drive your cars to the local shows, if 450 mi can be considered local. Your situation does not fall into the Trailer Queen approach IMHO

Maybe once I get mine all done up and loaded with a large investment I'll have a different viewpoint....I doubt it though.

An uncovered sand or gravel truck roaring past you may help with your new view point. It certainly helped mine...........Bob

[stealthbob]

Its a car....some people I know drive $50-70k cars every day to work.

The point being is that It won't be a "Perfect 400" forever so drive'er like you stole'er and enjoy. Deal with what happens as is comes....here if a rock hits you insurance covers the repairs anyways just like if I hit a deer.

Would I be upset...hell yes but on balance it would upset me more to have walk past my Buick and drive off in my Truck out of fear of something possibly happening to it.

Look I know there are some "Investment" cars...I'm just saying that's not for me and to stay germane to the OP sometimes when you "Over restore" a car it suddenly reaches the "Investment" car level and I will not let that happen.

Edited March 24, 2011 by stealthbob (see edit history)

[stealthbob]

I get it...perspective is everything.

I'm still so new at this so I am willing to agree that my outlook can change.

I also think, after re-reading the posts, that I may have taken this thread off track and for that I apologize...this was about the methods that cause "over restoration" and not the effects.

Driver vs Trailer Queen...I'm learning is close to the level of a "due's" thread I think.

[Bhigdog]

Big difference between an expensive new car that you're going to trade in a few years anyway and one that you've put 3000 hours of your own labor into. One that you've stripped and repaited the hood twice because it had a little body work show. One that parts may or may not be available for. One that factory matching paint for is non existant. One that the insurance co may want to send to the nearest "body shop" for "repair". One that you would rather cut yourself than the car. So while some may look down on what they call a trailer queen others may see a labor of love and a piece of art they wish could last forever. But you're right. It's just iron and whatever floats your boat is a valid view point. .................Bob

Edited March 24, 2011 by Bhigdog
added words for clarity (see edit history)

[Guest wildcat465]

Driver vs Trailer Queen...I'm learning is close to the level of a "due's" thread I think.

Don't worry Bob, this one is a real conversation. The participants do not seem to have fog in their heads.

Carry on.

[stealthbob]

True enough...

I sometimes forget though how narrow my experience is in all this and may speak out of turn. There is nothing wrong with the Trailer Queen set, frankly the thought of looking at that level of perfection is exciting.

....it's just not where I'm at now in my stage of the hobby, likely will never be.

cha·cun à son goût!

[NTX5467]

Certainly nothing wrong with driving the vintage vehicle you've just restored that is valued (by most guides) at $75K. If that's what you want to do, that's great.

Nothing wrong with driving a newer vehicle with an MSRP of $75K, either. But you'd probably get a better insurance "experience" with the newer vehicle, I suspect, but then that could depend upon the level of insurance coverage on the vintage vehicle and who the carrier might be.

But then many in the hobby can run the gamut between "It's a valuable vehicle" to "It's just a vehicle, meant to be driven". It can be a really neat adventure to drive a vintage vehicle cross country (as the recent posting of another member's trip in the USA), but I don't have that much time to do that, so it's more piece of mind to fly and get a rental car at the airport, at least for me, but that could change in a few years. Or get a rental car and not fly. Many different options!

Many people seem to deride "trailer queens", but there are some vehicles which are deserving of this designation, especially when going to events a good ways from home base. Some due to the investment of restoration and some due to "activity specific" builds for drag racing and such.

Many orientations . . .

NTX5467

[Guest Skyking]

At any factory, there was always a guy who was better at painting than the other guy, right? Some cars were just better right out the door. How do you apply a standard to something that varies so wildly? You could go crazy trying to think about it.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Matt, I've been arguing this fact for years. In another instance, in 2001 I brought my 1966 Skylark to the Buffalo national. The judges were going over my car and noticed my power steering cap was painted black. Now this car was an original unmolested one owner car I bought off a 91 year old lady. Before I restored the car the cap was black, not silver cadmium plated like they stated it should have been. These cars were built all over the country and I'm sure different suppliers supplied different parts from different vendors. So in all, I think there is a fine line in any judging issue.

[Guest wildcat465]

I like the trailer queens that are driven to the shows. You know who you are.

[Bhigdog]

They're ALL driven to the shows. The only question is how far..............Bob

[Guest 54fins]

Very interesting thread. Judging is very similar to religion! it

is a necessary collaboration yet virtually imposible to satisfy everyone. I personally like the way the judjing was handled, the ongoing debate helps the hobby as a whole. I personally feel that extensive restorations are not for everyone, and I love seeing the scads of Buicks that people drive up in with all sorts of bizzare stories. My first advice to anyone getting into the hobby is consider not restoring your car, although most cars require some work to make them presentable, enjoyable or drivable.

Many people enter the 400 point knowing there car won't win any awards- I think it's great. They get ideas of how they may want to or a summary of how authentic thier car really is. Then there is the turning point of what you really want out of your car. If you car has a good history, is complete and pretty authentic (which again spurrs debate) I do think there is value in trying to preserve what it really was like off the line. And "senior" is availble to those that can adhere to the guidelines.

I personally found the judging quite useful and alot of food for thought. There are some difficult issues one faces in building a car. I first off believe original has only one definition. Anything redone is not original. Your first oil change you loose the original oil. then plugs, points, shocks and the 1st round of wear items. These have to be serviced. Then paint, seals, finishes, chrome, material, wires etc. simply won't last over 30 years, unless in some rare cases the car is time capsuled in a stable environment. So for most cars there is some degree of restoration, now the debate is what is and is not acceptable.

I met a fellow with a 54 roady convertible at the nationals, that had a single stage matador red paint job. I thik he had used laquer paint, but I might be wrong on that. Anyhow, it blew me away. he also had 54 Buick red, not 57 Chevy Matador red. To me, there is a color match and there is an "as original" pint job, and he probably had one of very few paint jobs that I would consider as original. I could go on for hours with similar stories.

I do find it very interesting seeing the range of things people do with thier cars, from just enjoy as is, modified or to make a museum piece out of it. I personally built mine to have visual appeal, reasonably correct and a driver. I guess 2 out of three ain't bad!:eek: