Original Vs. Restored

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Here is a topic for a Friday afternoon...

The fact that many "good originals" go preserved rather than restored today is indeed a good thing, but at what point do you go from "good original" to "average car' and ultimately "project"?

Was thinking about this during the discussion on the Willoughby bodied Lincoln for those of you who were following that. General concensus being that car would be an excellent car to maintain in it's unrestored state, especially after O.P. put up some pics of the interior.

To me, once the interior reaches a certain point, and the body has rust out vs. minor surface rust or thin paint, it is time to make some decisions.

Now this is NOT about whether the car belongs there or not, but did anyone else catch the '28 - '29 "highboy" in the red field at Hershey this year? Got into a discussion with another tire kicker on the car - he would leave it alone, I am not so sure -- upholstery ripped, cowl rusted through, all components lightly surface rusted, asking over $25K. Two rows over, is a very very simillar '28-29 roadster, period hot rod, but painted, etc. - same money. Guess which car drew more lookers in the short time I was there?

Maybe not the best example, but with our antiques where would you draw the line? Any better examples for discussion out there?

Thanks

[LINC400]

As far as body, paint a little thin in spots, few minor rust spots and dents are ok. Major rust, damage, etc, should just be repainted. My car is the original color, which apparently cannot be duplicated with current formulas/chemicals, so it will not get repainted for a few spots and dents. However, I know of a 1957 Eldorado Brougham, black paint dull and spider cracked, was in an accident and repaired in the 1970's and has black paint cracking off the mint green replacement fender. He is "keeping it original". It should be repainted IMO. Basically the older it is, the more forgiving of flaws, but if it looks like something pulled out of a junkyard or swamp, it should just be restored.

Same deal with interior, a few flaws ok. If shredded, just reupholster.

Most annoying are claims of "all original, so it is being preserved" when it was repainted in the 1960's and reupholstered in the 1970's. That is not original. If it doesn't look good, just restore it.

[Highlander160]

Nice topic. I'm about to begin a "preservation" of a 70 Trans Am RAIII 4spd car for it's original owner. The overall plan is to remove the front clip and freshen all of the chassis black sheet metal parts, repair the brakes, lines, replace the fuel and brake lines, gas tank and exhaust system. The paint has a few surface spots but I'm very confident that I can perfectly match the Lucerne Blue paint. The engine will be cosmetically refreshed and properly tuned and everything put back just as it was. Other than repair of some corrosion from extended storage and repairs for safety and reliability, I consider the car to be as close to stone cold OEM as humanly possible once finished. The idea behind it is to create a "benchmark" of correct finishes and such for all to see on such a car. How would some of us consider this? The paint by the way, there's probably less than 2sqft that needs repair in some of the obvious places like around the glass and below 1 door.

On other examples, I think I see where you're going. The issue I have, a peave really, is when a restoration is not researched and liberties are taken because "it could have been..." vs striving for OEM. It's easy to over do something. Seeing a cut and buffed chassis and under-fender area really bugs me. The OEM didn't do it and I'm pretty sure that maybe 2 people in all of history may have asked for it on a really high end car.

When do we leave it? When it looks like something you'd have always been proud to own. Normal wear and "patina" (I HATE that term's latest abuse!) have limits. There was a stunning 27 Packard Murphy Roadster in HPOF this year. The paint was peeling off of the aluminum coachwork. The rest, while old, was a sight to see. What to do with the finish? I don't know really what you could do. I think the car could easily be kept original, but maybe some experimentation? It's not mine and wouldn't judge it's owner's decision one way or the other because it's just short of a genuine privilege to see something like that. I might be tempted to make some level of repair, but I'm a finisher by trade. Not hard to guess why on my part knowing that.

Your Lincoln example, I think the car should be mechanically sorted and every effort made to repair any damage that takes away from it's overall beauty. It deserves to be "romanced" into nearly show condition.

Many years ago I had a stone cold original 32 Packard 902 5pass cpe. 22,000 original miles. I refinished the hood tops and front fenders, blending the black lacquer into the original finish, re-striped over the original pinstriping, refinished the wheels and gave it new tires, re-chromed the bumpers. The interior was in very good condition and was nice enough to ride around in without feeling bad. I also replaced the top insert and the proper aluminum trim around it. Was it still an original car?

[DAVE A]

Steve;

I guess another factor here is what does the owner WANT to do with the car. Does he just want to have the car and enjoy it? Is he doing local car shows and cruises, AACA touring, HPOF, DPC, Class competition, or is he planning on Concours level showing. The answer may be different depending on the answer for these questions. As I have said in another thread, this is somewhat a social event also. What type of event determines what you want to do with the car as well.

[avantey]

Just my two cents here- My '13 Stude was repainted in the sixties and it is obvious with chips, cracks, etc. Other than that and maintenance items (wires, tires, clutch relined,) it is extremely original and untouched. I do not believe the drive train components have ever been opened up as she only has 7K miles on her. We got HPOF cert last year, the first time out.

This car could be fully restored but why do that? We love it the way it is and for what it is. As long any car is presentable, operational and maintained I would prefer to not restore it.

My '31 Hupp is the opposite. It needs an engine rebuild, the mohair is threadbare in spots with sagging headliner and damaged door panels. It needs restoration to preserve it and will get it as I can afford it. I did a ground up (new wood even) on my 'A' in '93-95 and it's been a great tour car since then.

And I am OK with doing it, not all cars can stay unrestored. It is a case by case decision for me. Again, just my humble opinion-

[Steve_Mack_CT]

great points of view guys. Of course we have to complicate it with the "preserved older restoration" and "sympathetic restoration" both of which I think on the right car, beat the all out restoration. Each car seems to be an individual case on it's own merit as Bill points out.

Highlander's project reminds me of my old Mulsanne blue '71 Camaro, the Chevy version of the same color, the BEST color for those F body cars of that era, IMHO. I wonder if the TA has any chips on those humungus doors? That sounds like somewhere between preserved original and sympathetically restored.

While I tend to gravitate more towards driven cars, I was at a shop a few weeks ago (and this car was in Choc. at Academy Auto restoration shop's booth) and was impressed with the absolute perfection of the '25 Buick 2-door that they did. It was nice to see such a complete, nut and bolt to perfection job done on a not-the rarest or most valuable type of car. There is a place for that along with an "A" that has won an award for 5, 10 or 15K miles from MARC.

[Guest palosfv3]

So much of this issue is really dependent on how well the previous owners and or service people cared for and maintained the car . Its quite a rarity to see a post war original let alone an original pre war car. If you do have an original that needs some maintainance there are few with the discipline and knowledge of how to keep things right. Yet Highlanders question " is the 902 Packard original ? " is hard to answer . I just completed a similar mechanical and interior repair to a 1960 Facel Vega HK 500 with 16,000 documented original miles that was in climate controlled storage since mid 1961 and was purchased new by the owner. There was some shipping damage that occurred during the original transport of the car to the US. It was correctly repaired in 61 and today you still can't tell it had paintwork done to it . We rebuilt the brake, fuel and cooling systems , replaced the tires and all of the deteriorated exterior and interior rubber seals and gaskets as well as the carpeting in the original Wilton wool . So is it still original ? Where is the line? I would say Highlanders Packard and this HK still fit in the original category since more than 70 % of the car is in its original state. There is a wonderful aura to these originals that cant be replicated in any restoration.

[trimacar]

I've watched this trend, as many of you have, concerning original cars. How many of us have seen over the years advertisments claiming "restored from an excellent original car".

The quest for trophies in judging cars has resulted in a huge number of great survivor cars being restored, particularly in the 80's and 90's. So, the preservation of cars was put on hold while the money was spent to have first place winners.

If one looks at bicycle and motorcycle collecting, it is seen that for years, originality is the key to both being desirable and being valuable. The sure way to reduce the value of a nice original ---cycle is to strip it and restore it.

Now, the same thing is happening with antique cars, and very nice originals are bringing more than restored cars, something you would not have seen happen from about 1975 to 2000, rough years.

Of course, we also remember when rodding a car would half the value. Now, the mere mention of a car being a rod (Model A, unrestored, short block not installed) doubles or more the value.

Interesting how times change.............

[1937hd45]

Great topic Steve, and I'm sure there are many offshoots to the discussion. The Hot Rod you mentioned looked like a survivor, but I'd like to see proof of what it looked like 20 years ago, my guess is that it was a recent build/assembly of period parts. There have been cars on the Hershey show field in the past 10 years that were total scratch built cars, they looked great and drew a crowd, but how do they effect the true car, restored or as found? I've been in the hobbly long enough to remember truely great unrestored cars given so so "restorations" that today would be fought over unrestored cars. It is a very interesting trend, HPOF, and other preserved in time vehicles. Anyone can polish brass, but it takes a lot of skill to take a newly manufactured part and apply a faux patina to it that allows it to blend into an original unrestored vehicle.

[Guest stephen48]

Here is a photo showing an example of an original car, an early Essex. It is very appealing as it is and would lose a lot if it were restored in my view.

[1937hd45]

Ever wonder how much of an original car is lost in a restoration? My 1912 Ford Touring was restored in 1950 just in time to go on the Glidden Tour. If I wanted to restore it today to win an AACA Junior & Senior most of the car would be lost to reproduction replacement parts. Radiator, hood, all four fenders running boards and aprons, every brass lamp, wheels, windsheild. All I'd be reusing would be the running gear and the body, somehow the loss of a 61 year old restoration doesn't seam worth it.

[trimacar]

On early cars, particularly the brass era, they are found in such condition that reproduction fenders are the only way to go.

On the other hand, I'll take a wavy original fender over a reproduction anytime.

In restoring my 1910 Hupmobile, I acquired a 1911 Hupp project to get a few original parts. A set of repro feners were included in the deal. The thought crossed my mind to replace my somewhat less than perfect original fenders with the nice repros, but I just couldn't do it, those were the fenders the car came from the factory with in 1910, and by gosh they're on the car. It will never win any first place trophy like that, but by gosh it's original parts.

Your Model T is a great example, there were no repro parts available in the 50's, so the originals, thank goodness, had to do.....

[1937hd45]

Years ago I wanted to buy a 1911 Hup, it was a one owner car that my friend bought still had the 1921 plates on it. I made a mistake of selling stuff to fund the purchase without telling him I wanted the car. When I had 50% of the asking price I went over only to find he'd sold it. Years later I told him this story and he really got bothered over it, turns out he would have taken payments or whatever to let me get it. I did get to work on the restoration for the lucky new owner. When we stripped the paint off the right front fendet there was a rusty full hand print from an original worker on it. I felt bad sanding off that trace of history.

[Highlander160]

I found a before and after of my Packard. This was in 93 or 94 before the "patina" rage began in full force:

I'm guilty of changing the wheel color and adding the canvas spare cover. That paint is original and hand polished. The yellow glass was just freakin kool IMO. Perhaps that's another thing that goes to far, leaving the paint all seedy and tired instead of what a proud owner might do. Polish and clean it, keep it waxed and shiney. Dirt and rust are just that, they aren't "history". Going too far? A guy with an old truck told me he wanted to keep the "original dents" on the bed of a refinished original. DOH!!!

Edited October 22, 2011 by Highlander160 (see edit history)

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

I would think there may be a very thin line between when to realize "preservation" is stupid verses "saving." In taking the "preservation" attitude or approach, one might well be signing a death warrant simply because it is often totally impossible to see where the rust worms are gleefully eating away and old wood (if applicable) is merrily dry rotting. Then there is the fact, the longer one waits to restore the more difficult it becomes to find replacements for those things that went to heck while thinking preservation.

As a matter of personal opinion "preservation" is only a worthwhile consideration if a vehicle has darn low mileage and has never been exposed to salted roads or driven on a darn beach. Anyone who has ever tackled a restoration knows well any well appearing car can often reveal rust beyond easy repair in hidden places as soon as the restoration process begins. Such surprises can happen on cars barely old enough to be recognized by any state as an antique or classic car. I've seen cars "preserved" until there was nothing to actually save, much less restore.

[Steve Jelf- southern KS]

A saying often heard among Model T folks is They're original only once. It's rare to find a ninety-year-old car well preserved, but sometimes it happens and the new owner assumes he should take it all apart and do a ground-up restoration. But for restoration purposes there are lots of old cars of unknown history and in bad shape. If I were lucky enough to find a well preserved prewar car at a price I could afford, I'd make sure all the mechanical things like suspension, drive line, and brakes were up to snuff, clean it and polish it, and drive and enjoy it. And if I drove it to cruise night at the local burger joint, especially if it were from the twenties or before and had a crank on the front, guess which car would draw the crowd.

[NTX5467]

Interesting comments! I tend to concur with the "They're only original once". Where that line might be drawn can be discusssed. I'd say, "After the first oil scheduled oil change" with progressions past "The first tune-up" to other points in the vehicle's life.

To me, "vehicle preservation" really needs to start when the vehicle is still new, rather than at 30K+ miles. Another part of that vehicle preservation process is having supporting local and national car club organizations which recognize the particular car THEN, not 20+ years later. This puts some purpose in the preservation process, rather than leaving it to a later owner to worry about. To me, the new vehicle which is preserved from the start is an easier vehicle to keep nice and will generally look better in later years. An example would be the 1986 Buick Regal V-8, of which photos were recently posted in a recent BCA forum post.

In those earlier years, many might think "Why bother? It's NOT a collectible vehicle." At least not now, possibly. As others shudder to consider that any fwd sedan might be collectible in the future. This last comment can be related to the observation that many in the hobby tend to desire to suspect that future collectors or enthusiasts will want to like what they (the current hobbiests) like, tending to overlay "our orientations" over what future generations might believe to be "collectible". Certainly, the "2-dr vs. 1000-dr" orientations are usually included in these orientations.

Luckily, these "more vintage generational demographics" have not seemed to be very contagious with younger owners. If you go (or watch) one of the many car events where younger "tuners" are involved, the car shows will be highly-populated with reasonably-current production vehicles. Some with more spent on modifications than the basic vehicle is worth. Check out the "Young Guns" section of the Mopar Nationals, too. Plus RegalGS (or similar Pontiac GrandPrix fwd performance websites). It seems that nobody told these younger people that anything past 1990 is not collectible . . . in many cases, THAT's the age of vehicles (or newer) that THEY are driving and THEY are proud of them so THEY take care of and exchange information about them just like WE did in the 1960s and such. And some perceived that "Pride of Ownership" doesn't exist any more? Just because we have had to compromise our desires for particular vehicles against what the manufacturers are now building?

Preservation is good and desired. I'd rather see an "unmolested" vehicle rather than one that's been totally restored on a show field. Much of the originality of the base vehicle's build is usually lost in restorations to "make it nicer than it used to be" and allegedly more desireable/collectible/valuable. Paint daubs, inspection stamps, paint codes to identify axles or transmissions on the assembly line, rather than having to look at printed tags, for example.

Although I wasn't into the "panti daubs/inspection marks" things in 1972, but when my parents bought a new Chrysler at the end of the model year, the first time I came home from college after it had a few miles on it, I got a can of "clear battery terminal protector" (which I suspected to be a clear, satin enamel paint of sorts) and gave each of the inspection marks on the core support and the underhood decals/labels a few light coats of that paint. Five years later, they were all pristine, but the more-inexpensive type of paint was starting to crack, so I lightly misted a few more passes to even it out. To me, this is preservation, especially considering that replacements would be "non-obtainium" for many years, if ever. 40 years later, though, with the progression of the restoration end of the hobby, plus that some of the same paint stamps and labels would be approximated by similar items on the muscle Mopars, it might be a different story.

A possible reason that "preservation" is even in the conversation is that many owners might not really desire to do a "restoration" on their vehicle . . . OR know what all that might entail for their particular vehicle. To them, "preservation" can mean "close-match" upholstery fabrics/vinyls/leathers rather than "exact match". Or current models of radial tires rather than repro bias plies. In other words, if they need a part, they use what's available locally (where ever THAT might be, which can present variable issues in itself) rather than send off for the allegedly correct original-style part. This can also play into capabilities of the owner/repair shop AND the related financial issues/resources of the owner.

The "I'm going to keep it nice" orientation can mask MANY side issues, with all due respect, just as the "I want to be able to drive it regularly" orientation can figure into some mechanical upgrades (incognito and highly-visible) being performed. Cosmetics and mechanical issues, plus available funding, can trump "historic originality" in these situations. Especially in vehicles for which searching for original parts takes a national car club suport network.

I especiallly like and appreciate the approach noted for the 1970 TransAm car!!! Doing the minimum to get it back "up to production-level standards", rather than a "take it all apart and over-restore it so it looks good to the general public in an indoor car show" approach. By observation, with all due respect, some of the worst offenders of the "over-restore" orientation are some Pontiac enthusiasts. Putting shiney black paint where GM never put that stuff, for example. End result is that the general public sees the over-restored car and, as they like it, then consideres THAT to be "correct" and then THAT becomes the standard against which THEY use to look at cars in the future. End result is that when the general public car enthusiast sees a correctly-done vehicle, it looks "dull" compared to the over-restored car . . . yet an informed enthusiast would usually like the "correct" car more and pay more for it or get one done like it.

In some higher-level Mopar Nationals Concours Judging, if a Dodge Daytona wing car does not have the "three levels of underbody overspray", points are deducted for that indiscretion. Same with some of the conversion parts being repainted in the same paint the body is painted in rather than otherwise ("otherwise" would be the paint used by the off-site conversion company, usually acrylic lacquer as many body shops used back then for "refinish" operations, even if the car had acrylic enamel on it from the factory). These finer points would be things which the normal restoration shop would not know about on those cars. One of those "You have to know how the particular vehicle was built, when it was built, and use then-original-style procedures to reproduce these same effects on the restored finished product, even if it looks sloppy compared to others, duplicating "End of the Assembly Line" rather than otherwise. Taking the time to use a paint system as close as possible to the original paint system rather than what's easy to get now, for example.

If I was in the market for a vehicle, I'd usually want one that's as unmolested as possible and pay an appropriate price for it . . . knowing that it might need some mechanical and cosmetic things in the future. Any prior repairs could be noted, then, too. But that doesn't mean I'd purchase a "formerly-preserved" vehicle which will now take more to put it back than what it might ultimately be worth 10 years into the future. I'd be looking at current and ultimate value positioned against purchase price. Even if I purchased a 98 out of 100 point show winner, restored, I'd be wary of any hidden things under all of that new paint without a complete mechanical inspection of the underbody and other areas of the vehicle . . . on a lift. This orientation was strengthened after seeing a batch of vehicles which our shop has been going over for the purchaser, purchased from a high-level vehicle auction company's event. PM me for details, if desired.

Just some thoughts . . . not completely original, but preserved none-the-less . . .

NTX5467

Edited October 22, 2011 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[Dynaflash8]

If you can afford it, full restoration is my choice. If the car is good original and you can't afford to restore it, use it as is. If it's fixed up (Driver) and you can't afford to restore it, use it as is. Those are just my personal opinions.

[trimacar]

Interesting opinions. As mentioned in previous threads, I took my 1937 Cord to the ACD Festival this year (and guys, you need to go to this, it's not just ACD, but cruise ins, air show, an incredible experience).

My car was a "dust it off and paint it" 1960's paint job, which I've now verified with the gentleman who sold it in 1969 to the fellow I bought it from. It has 50% original upholstery and a lot of unrestored features, much to the delight of the purists I met at Auburn.

From comments and discussion, I'd guess about 75% of the people agree with Dynaflash, with comments like gee, that'll be a nice car when you restore it.

Another 20% of the people thank you for bringing the car to show in that condition, saying it's great to see a car that hasn't been fully restored, but rather as you'd see it on a used car lot in the 50's.

The final 5% are the ones who look at details, and take great pleasure in seeing a car that hasn't been chromed and buffed and detailed to the nth degree. One person looked at the hood latches on my car, and commented that just about every restored car he's seen has these chrome plated, while it's obvious mine have never been plated.....details.

I've restored cars too. But the character of a nice original car cannot be replaced. And, as I've stated before, and I'll use a more contemporary car to make the point, if you have a row of 1966 Mustangs, perfectly restored to way beyond how they came from the factory, and in the row there's one, great, unrestored, car, which one will you later gush about and remember details?

[stock_steve]

That's one heck of a sporty & cool Packard!!!

[R Walling]

I had a local college ask me to restore their 37 Chev. fire truck.

I asked what they were going to do with it and it seems that they were going to junk it, but the garage manager though it would be a good choice to install seats in the back and drive the alumni around campus in it.

He said that would be a great fund raiser if he could get the old-timers spirits up enough to donate.

I recommended a "preservation" instead of an expensive restoration.

I described it in detail and they went for it.

If I had given them the price of a restoration, it would have been out of their budjet and they would have junked it.

They were extremly pleased with the results including the fact that they wanted to re-chrome the bell and headlights and other parts that were painted.

It turns out that all the chrome was painted during the war in 1940 and was in perfect condition when I stripped the paint off!

Edited October 23, 2011 by Roger Walling
sp (see edit history)

[skyler]

this is a very interesting topic as original cars are now starting to get recognition as important to the hobby and getting some more value. i have a 1954 chrysler convertible that is an original unrestored car, even the top is original. i do not have the money to restore it or i would do it because the car deserves it. i must admit that it does attract attention the way it is and many people say leave it alone. it would be a tough decision if all of a sudden i had the money. the car club i belong to has added a survivor class to our car show. i am the judge. i started out trying to use the bloomington gold standards but they are too demanding for the average guy. i now judge a car to be a survivor if it is mostly original, not restored to original. a complete repaint takes it out of the survivor class in my judging. it can be a tough call at times, but we just give a certificate of apprciation for these cars so i end up giving out more certificates than i should to make people happy. however, they cannot be judged for trophies if they choose to be in the survivor class. it has turned out to be a great experience for me and makes alot of people glad they brought out a car they thought nobody cared about except them. Skyler

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Highlander, your approach with your Packard is perfect, IMHO. I would not leave surface rust or dirt (liked your earlier comments!)on such a nice car, and "cleaning up" where appropriate is really the perfect approach for a car in that state.

Personally, I am really gravitating towards "sympathetic restorations" or "original, but maintained/restored or refurbished as necessary" as long as it is well done...

[dei]

Not to be too long winded here (ha ha).......... my experience with restored vs original is this:

I now own what was Dads 1951 Nash Canadian Statesman and while about to turn over 100,000 miles, has 75% of it's original black paint, original chrome, original glass and original upholstery. As one would expect it shows some wear in the paint and the upholstery from years of service. However, it has a documented three car owner history and has only seen one winter use in it's whole life.

While at a car & boat show a few years back, a man spent quite a long time looking at her and finally approached me to say that he felt this car was original correct? After some history on the car he explained that he was a panel maker for RM Restorations here in Canada and felt that I should not repaint (restore) this car as restored cars never duplicate that factory/assembly look. He said that restorers/owners tend to want to correct the sometimes slight early assembly flaws like door fits/gaps, hood and trunk alignments to make the car look perfect. He also confirmed that these cars eventually will be worth more than the restored cars simply because they are the untouched example of what was.

Without wanting to appear sitting on the fence, I do see both sides and like what has been said on the Buick forums; it is your car, you own it so feel free to enjoy it as you wish. For now, I like the idea of showing off the car as it is and enjoy the look of amazement on peoples faces that can't imagine keeping something that long and look that good. Besides that, how many bathtub Nashs do you see today? Let alone fairly originals?

[skyler]

dei, i saw the nash from the superman show about 5 years ago at a show on long island, ny. i think lois lane drove it in the tv series. it had that top that slid off down the side frames on top of the car. you would need to see one to know how it looks. it was green and in nice shape, but i am not sure if completely original. other than that one, i have not seen any at a show except for one that was radically rodded. i own 2 1954 chryslers that are original. i would restore the convertible if i had the money, but leave the sedan alone. i drive both of them. skyler

[Guest etolen]

My experience with Original vs Restored. My wife and I took our 1925 Oakland to a car show last spring (not AACA sanctioned). Our car is about 95% original. Not the prettiest thing to be seen, but it is pretty much all original. The car show is by invitation only. We were the only car entered in the 1920's Class. When it came time for the awards, the 1920's Class trophy was given to a 1929 Nash that was entered in the Hot Rod Class. I guess our car just wasn't pretty enough to get a trophy. We won't be going back to that show again.

[Highlander160]

etolen, I feel ya brother, but look at it this way. What was the crowd's reception to your mainly "as it was" car? Keeping something original should be about preserving the history and providing a source for study on how it was. It's almost never about awards, although now, many of the higher end concours meets are offering an "Original" class for such owners. Your car provides examples of how things were done on more than just Oaklands. There's several things that were industry standards in all models, and perhaps there's stuff on that car one may find on everything from Ford to Packard. I tip my hat to ya for keeping it real.

[Guest 36chev]

Hope this doesn't deviate too much from topic, but here it goes: Sometimes cars are described as "restored" when they are hot rods or other modifieds. Then other times "original" is used to represent a restored, unmodified car. The term "original" always meant to me as it is being used in this thread--an unrestored, unmodified car. And restored meant taking the vehicle back to as it left the factory--or as close as possible.

It seems, as in the use of the term capital C "Classic," that "original" and "restored" are losing their meaning in the general public (or larger car world) and can be used however the owner wants to define them.

...and to add to this rant:o, for most friends and people I work with hot rods = antique cars. There is no difference in their minds--they will go to car show or see some vehicles going down the road and say "look at all of those antique cars" when they are all street/hot rods. They are well-intended--it's just that this is what popular culture has dictated.

Edited October 25, 2011 by 36chev (see edit history)

[old car fan]

trimacar,i am surprised the acd did not want to keep your car,solid, nice real car.How did you do on your certification,and what a process that is.By no means do i want to hijack the post,but his car was great to see ,and he is right,go to the acd meet.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

So far David has not bitten on my offer to take that "dusty old Cord" off his hands!

[trimacar]

Well, this could still be on topic for original cars, discussing the ACD certification process. Basically, the Cord was examined for originality, with emphasis on finding and documenting numbers on frame, transmission, engine, data plate, and body number plate. This is an early form of "numbers matching", or at least being in a range that would fit with production dates.

It was found with my car that the engine number doesn't match the data plate, something I'd never looked at. Thus, at some point, a replacement engine was installed in the car. When I expressed concern about this to the leader of the certification group, he sort of chuckled and said that half the Cords out there have a different engine in them than when they left the factory.

My understanding is a group reviews the documentation, then will give a certification number and certificate in a few months.

It was interesting watching the group work on certifying an L29 Cord, as apparently there are numbers on just about everything, and it takes a long time to document.

Gee, Steve, think I'll keep the dusty old Cord for a while, but thanks, I've grown used to having it take up space in my garage!!

[mike brady]

In 2012, the ACD club will feature the "year of the unrestored car". I certainly hope David returns to Auburn with his Cord. My Cord was last there 50 years ago, so 2012 is my lastest goal.

[trimacar]

Well, I've owned the car for 26 or so years, finally make up my mind to take it for the first time to the ACD festival this year, the Year of the 810 Cord.

Then, ACD states that 2012 is the Year of the Unrestored Car......had I just waited ONE MORE YEAR to go it would have been perfect....but am going to try to go again next year!!

[Guest etolen]

etolen, I feel ya brother, but look at it this way. What was the crowd's reception to your mainly "as it was" car? Keeping something original should be about preserving the history and providing a source for study on how it was. It's almost never about awards, although now, many of the higher end concours meets are offering an "Original" class for such owners. Your car provides examples of how things were done on more than just Oaklands. There's several things that were industry standards in all models, and perhaps there's stuff on that car one may find on everything from Ford to Packard. I tip my hat to ya for keeping it real.

It has never been about winning trophies for my wife and I. We usually get a real good reception from the crowd, especially some of the more senior spectators who tell us that they learned to drive in a car just like it. We really enjoy being able to show people what a car from that period looks like in its unrestored condition. It's not a rust bucket by any means, but there are bare spots where the paint has worn off, a few small dinges and the paint is faded, but not many people get to see the original factory paint, interior, etc and that does make it something special.

We don't expect to win awards for the car, but I guess it was more the fact that the judges basically told us that our car wasn't "worthy" of an award and that they would rather pull a car from a different class than actually have to give our car the award. It was almost like our car wasn't good enough to be at their show.

[Guest Siegfried]

My 2 cents on the topic? I have a HPOF 1963. The exterior paint is not looking very nice. It will be repainted, and if I lose my HPOF status then; so be it. We'll just go DPC. I've had this car since 1984. Prior to my ownership it resided outside, and was driven year round. Why the repaint? Simply bcause I am mildly embarrassed to be driving what should be a beautiful 1963 Karmann Ghia. When I'm done it will be. The rest of the car is original. By the way, I'll be using acrylic enamel with a urethane clear over top. The repaint will be close to period correct, and not up to todays appearances of paint.

[LINC400]

At a recent cruise night, some people asked me if my car was the original color. I said not only is it the original color, but it is the original paint. After that they had to walk around my car and point out every single flaw it had. It was not being officially judged, this was just some guys being jerks.

I really don't care about trophies. I've gotten a couple, and was excited when I got them. After that, they just sit around and collect dust. But it is very annoying when your car is ignored because of some overrestored trailer queen or never leaves a 10 mile radius from home car. Or when your car is ignored because of some ridiculously customized thing that you wonder if it is even legal to drive.

Another thing is that original 1970's cars are not considered a big deal, but for 1950's and earlier it is. Well those pre-1950's cars would not be still original at 60+ years old if they weren't when they were 30 years old as well.

Also I don't get the big deal about HPOF should not be restored or repainted, but chopping, cutting and channeling is a different story. That increases the value.

[skyler]

last show i went to they had a category for original. i have a 1954 chrysler, and other than a seat cover replacement is unrestored. the car looks it too as the paint is faded with primer in some places, engine is a little crusty, and the rest of the interior is nice but shows age and some wear. rugs have some mice damage. however, it runs and drives well and we use it often. the winner at the show was a 1969 camaro that had been beautifully restored to original, so their idea of original is to just look it but not be unrestored. our original cars are starting to get recognition, but we all agree that the terminology is being mixed up and confusing. we use the term survivor at my club's show and it is any mostly unrestored car. we want people to bring them out so we are not too fussy about who gets a certificate. skyler

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Linc, not sure of the exact year of your car but it is approaching 40 years old, right? THAT is a long time for original paint; I would expect some flaws indeed. (I know I am gettting old as I remember when a family in the neighborhood got one of these when they first came out - I thought it was the coolest car ever made! The owner was a car guy - collector and shortly after the new Mark IV he followed up with a Continental Mark II, guess what, new coolest car... )

I think what is appreciated by true collectors vs. the public can be frustrating, but just a fact of life. I can't speak to your comments comparing HPOF to hot rodding and value, as I was kind of thinking about originality vs. restoration. I think if someone is inclined to modify a car, the condition the car is in at the outset is generally not critical to the decision.

Clearly the organizers of the show etolen attended recently don't get it. If they are not car people and they want to build a nice event over time is it worth your while to give them your feedback? If sponsor is a car club, my guess is you have one more on the "pass next year" list...

Edited October 26, 2011 by Steve_Mack_CT
spelling (see edit history)

[LINC400]

Linc, not sure of the exact year of your car but it is approaching 40 years old, right? THAT is a long time for original paint; I would expect some flaws indeed. (I know I am gettting old as I remember when a family in the neighborhood got one of these when they first came out - I thought it was the coolest car ever made! The owner was a car guy - collector and shortly after the new Mark IV he followed up with a Continental Mark II, guess what, new coolest car... )

I think what is appreciated by true collectors vs. the public can be frustrating, but just a fact of life. I can't speak to your comments comparing HPOF to hot rodding and value, as I was kind of thinking about originality vs. restoration. I think if someone is inclined to modify a car, the condition the car is in at the outset is generally not critical to the decision.

Clearly the organizers of the show etolen attended recently don't get it. If they are not car people and they want to build a nice event over time is it worth your while to give them your feedback? If sponsor is a car club, my guess is you have one more on the "pass next year" list...

My car is a 1976, so 36 years old. Aside from 2 very annoying nickel sized rust spots, I think it still looks pretty good with its dents and scratches. However, the guys criticizing my car at the cruise night were supposed "car guys" with their own cars.

In fact a Lincoln collector I know also has a 1976 Givenchy. He was telling me how he had it all redone, new paint, new vinyl top, etc. I was not happy hearing this thinking my car would now look like crap next to his. Finally got both cars together. He tried, but the paint color does not quite match and does not look as good. Vinyl top does not look quite correct either. Yet it would probably get the trophy at any show due to mine having rust and dings, and his not. I still prefer mine though (actually I think he did too, at least the paint color).

Original condition is getting some attention, but is still not widely recognized yet. Plus, as I said, it still doesn't seem to count for 1970's cars. Add to that the confusing use of the term. Some mean not customized, while others think 1/2 the car repainted 20 years ago and replaced interior at the same time still qualifies as original. Even at survivor shows, IMO a 90% original car that looks good should get the trophy over a 60% original one that looks a little better. But that doesn't happen.

And it is just odd in the hobby that an original car starts a big uproar over preserve vs. restore, but not many seem to have an issue with street rodding that same car (outside of AACA that is).

Edited October 26, 2011 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Steve_Mack_CT]

"outside AACA" says volumes. The "car guys" you describe are likely not true collectors - they are in a simillar but still different hobby. May sound snobby but expecting most cruise night attendees to appreciate your car is probably setting yourself up for dissapointment. Its just not their thing. You need to attend AACA events, concours, CCCA events and the like if you are looking for serious recognition. The way I look at it, pot luck is ok once in a while, but fine dining is usually a nicer experience. It's all about the right venue for your interest.

Anyone else see an inverse corralation betweent the volume of music at any car event and the overall quality of the event??

Edited October 26, 2011 by Steve_Mack_CT
added humor (see edit history)