The Stewardship of Historically Important Automobiles

[ersatzS2]

I just started reading Fred Simeone's book that I picked up at the Bonhams tent at Hershey. I'm just a couple chapters in but thought it would be interesting to start a thread on reactions.

The opening chapters lay out an interesting case, but one thing that strikes me right off the bat is the priority of 'Importance,' in addition to 'history.' While they lay out a pretty stringent set of priorities and values that apply to the 'preservation' argument, I also get the sense that they believe it applies to a fairly small and rarified subset of the collector car universe. "only T-Head Mercers are important..."

I'm eager to read the rest, and curious to hear the case unfold.

The Stewardship of Historically Important Automobiles | Simeone Foundation Automotive Museum

[1937hd45]

I don't have the good doctors book, but somehow understand were he is going with the idea. His T head MERCER lived one street over from me for most of its life. I personally enjoy knowing the history of of cars that have been in the hobby since the 1930's and before, that would put your L head on my list. Bob

[Guest Mochet]

Not much reaction to the Simoene preservation book yet, but there has always been a subset of car buffs who disliked the uber-restorations we often see. Unlike other fields (artworks and furniture, for example) restoration on cars seems to increase rather than decrease value. I often wonder what that "perfect" car looked like before restoration. Was it a pile of rust or a pretty decent survivor? The AACA's HPOF category is a good start, but the most prestigious awards still go to the "look-like-new" restos.

I would like to see a book similar to this one, but detailing the methods of preservation: stopping rust while preserving paint, etc.

Phil

[ersatzS2]

I have now finished most of the book, and I guess I'm concluding that his points are almost completely irrelevant to 99.9% of what most of us would consider 'antique' or 'special interest' cars. He is arguing for special treatment (preservation/conservation/stabilization) of a tiny group of very elite cars which have a unique claim on significance. Ironically, he really isn't making a case for the kind of 'barn find' originality that is in vogue, unless the car being found has true significance by his definition.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Interesting thread, but I think certain cars that may not have been historically significant in the day, but have been unusually well preserved, and ideally well documented are also in a unique class. Matt Harwood's new Packard listing seems like the ideal example of this.

http://forums.aaca.org/f119/1934-packard-eight-4-door-sedan-339502.html

The line between "better preserved" vs. "should be restored" is different with each case most of the time. (only an idiot would restore the above Packard) Sometimes, preservation means preserving old features that are not necessarily original to the car but part of its history - I think your Mercer, if I remember the details right, fits this bill.

On the other hand, I do think the overall good trend towards presevation has caused some cars that really should be restored or at least refurbished in some way to be scooped up in the preservation phase - for now. If there is more surface rust or primer than paint, and the car is less than 80 + years old, chances are you may want to consider restoration.

Anyway, great thread, surprised not more people have weighed in.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Steve_Mack_CT (see edit history)

[alsancle]

I'm a firm believer that anyone has the right to do what they want with their own car. I also believe in my right to call them a moron when they over restore or mess with something that should be left alone. Sometimes there are clear cut examples of cars that need to be preserved instead of restored. The Packard Steve posted being a golden example. In other situations it can be very gray what the "correct" course of action is. We can only hope that each individual "does the right thing" with regard to their own property.

[ersatzS2]

I'm a firm believer that anyone has the right to do what they want with their own car. I also believe in my right to call them a moron when they over restore or mess with something that should be left alone.

Yep, and Fred & Company certainly acknowledge property rights. One chapter describes the fate of a the Sterling Moss Lemans winning Aston Martin which is still campaigned in vintage races. It was crashed pretty hard at Laguna in '99, but even without that episode, any racecar is gradually going to be consumed and slowly 'replaced.' Malcom Collum, author of this chapter says, "with each restoration campaign the car is slowly being turned into a replica of the Le Mans winning Aston... It's market value and historic value might be diminished, but that is the private owner's prerogative."

[alsancle]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

[JV Puleo]

Many years ago I read an article in the VMCCA magazine about the restoration of an Auburn boat tail roadster. It started with the owner saying he had purchased new fenders and had all the sheet metal replicated because it was in such poor condition... then, because the chassis wasn't much better, he bought an Auburn sedan, threw the body away and replaced the chassis too. I just scratched my head... the funny thing to me was that this was all said in dead seriousness. It wasn't a joke and the author seemed completely oblivious to the idea that he had effectively replaced the entire car. I'm reminded of an expression a friend used... "restored from two tracks in the mud."

I'm one of those that has always (going back to the early 70s) detested over-restoration... or any restoration beyond cleaning to exceptionally well preserved early cars. I particularly remember a fantastic 1908(?) Packard 30 roadster that had belonged to the late Rod Blood. I knew the person who bought it at the Blood auction. To his credit, he preserved it exactly as he got it but eventually sold it and it is my understanding that the next owner "restored" it. A few years later I was at a car show in Massachusetts and saw what may have been the same Packard being unloaded from a trailer, though I hoped it wasn't, because this car was painted a bright electric blue and was polished to the point of being almost painful to look at.

Edited November 10, 2012 by JV Puleo (see edit history)

[Guest Rob McDonald]

This is a good thought-provoking thread, even for those of us who will never own an Historically Important Automobile. There's a wiggly line between preservation and neglect: 1933 Packard Twelve Convertible Victoria I'm glad though that the longtime keeper of this Historically Important Packard enjoyed it for what it was, even as its condition declined around him.

[stock_steve]

"Historically Important," to my view is a phrase that can be interpreted various ways.

In my opinion, nice original examples of any antique production automobile should be preserved and appreciated.

And so, a tip of the hat to AACA is due for the creation of the HPOF class, where such automobiles can be displayed with just as much "status" as the restored jewels in National Meets.

But like others have also noted, the owner has the right do do what they wish with their car. Hopefully if they had the gumption to acquire such an automobile in the first place, they will make rational decisions about how they choose to enjoy it...

[Guest BJM]

I think that overall there are enough old cars out there that you can do whatever you want to them. I sued to think the opposite, that old cars were rare and needed saved and preserved or restored. The old car hobby is now 50+ years old and there is enough awareness out there that the attrition rate is slowing drastically.

I would like to purchase this fellows book now out of curiosity. Amazon I guess?

[ersatzS2]

Ship of Theseus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ha Ha, yes actually I believe this metaphor is cited in the book. I hadn't heard it before but have used the proverb of George Washington's hatchet "the handle has been replaced three times and the head twice, but this is the same hatchet George used to cut down the cherry tree..."

I really do recommend the book as a baseline for this whole discussion. He is actually quite thoughtful and balanced, and respectful of owners' prerogatives. It also contains useful definitions from other hobbies, such as the criteria used by the Air & Space museum for categorizing important aircraft.

I don't know if this is available on Amazon or not, but certainly from the Simeone Foundation website.

[Guest Mochet]

Click here to purchase the book. It's $60 + shipping.

Phil

[Bhigdog]

Actually there is no such thing as a "restoration" if using the dictionary definition. As soon as ANYTHING is changed it's not in it's original condition anymore. "Replication" would be a much more accurate term. Other than a museum piece to be used as a reference object for study I'll leave it each car owner to decide if they would rather their car to look and be original, with all it's rust,dents, wear and age or replicated to look sort of as it did when new. There is no correct answer.

That said, Some cars l admire with all their age earned wear and tear. Others just look like junk. It's like porn. I can't define it but I know it when I see it..........Bob

Edited November 12, 2012 by Bhigdog (see edit history)

[ersatzS2]

Reading further, another observation: the various contributors to the book (which is really a collection of essays and commentary) vary a fair degree in their opinions. Just like online!

I do like the essay by Ed Gilbertson, though. He says things like, "First and foremost, we must always remember that cars are meant to be driven. A restored car that is not driven is a hollow object with no soul..." Later he says, "A silent car may be an important symbol of the age. But it will never be something that generates the degree of excitement the attends the sight and sound of a great car barreling down the road."