Ethical question, Sedan to Phaeton conversion

[ericmac]

I was highly intrigued by the cover story of this months magazine. Here we have an exceptionally rare car being "chopped" into a car that is even more rare. The result is a car that is stunning to look at, and has won major awards all over the place, even though it is technically a modern re-creation of an original car. I have no doubt that some clubs (CCCA in particular) would take a dim view of this practice, even though it was commonplace when the club originated (perhaps part of why the CCCA discourages the practice now). The work on the car is clearly spectacular, as is the finished product. Obviously, the owner was well aware of the ethical concerns that could be raised but went forward in a cautious and authentic fashion.

Now, having read this far I fear others will think I am being critical of the owner of the Sterns-Knight. Not so. I want to follow in his footsteps! I have a '29 Franklin 7-passenger sedan in my garage that is in pretty much the same shape as the featured car, well, actually I have two '29 Franklins, one of which will be done as a sedan. I want to do the other as a phaeton but have been troubled by the same questions as the owner of the Stearns-Knight. In my case I have a pair of rare cars (there appear to be about 15-20 Model 137 7-passenger sedans left) one of which could become a much rarer car. The 137 Sedan, done with an AACA Senior Grand National badge affixed to the grill might be worth, $20-25,000 at best. A replica 7-passenger phaeton might be worth 3-5 times that amount. My question is, what did all of you think of the Searns-knight and what do you think about me following with a similar quality restoration/modification on a Franklin?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Eric

[alsancle]

In general I don't like replicas/recreations/tributes etc because the history of the car is important to me. I value a 2 owner car more than a 20 owner car. I value a real car with known history more than a real car with unknown history. You will definitely lose money in the long run but if you really want a phaeton it is your car and your money but I would vote no.

[Bhigdog]

As to whether you should do it or not that's your call based on your desires. Ethically you should document and fully disclose the car's history to both any future buyer and anyone who might be looking on your car as a restored to original example. How you assure that history to successive buyers I don't know..................Bob

[trimacar]

It seams to me that the "acceptance" of converting a sedan into an open car increases in direct proportion to the rarity and value of the base car being altered.

If I took a 1931 Model A Ford sedan, and chopped the top, would the result be as accepted at shows and events? I think not.

The car featured in the magazine, the Stearns Knight, is a beautiful creation, but is not a factory bodied car no matter how much original steel was used. To use the AACA judging words, it's not "as it left the factory", and as such I'm surprised it can win top awards.

None of that takes away from the quality of the restoration.

[Rusty_OToole]

It is getting harder to palm off fakes as these old cars become scarcer and their history better documented. Chances are you would end up with a known bogus car that was worth no more than a sedan, maybe less.

[Kimo]

Forgeries are forgeries in any kind of collecting. If you clearly and permanently mark them as such I would not have a problem, but they would need to be marked in an obvious place and in such a way that someone could not easily remove the marking to try to pass it off as real. To me such a car would be worth less than the original version/model from which it was made.

[Steve Moskowitz]

This is a debate that has been going on for decades. Whether it is a Duesenberg that is re-bodied, a Rolls-Royce or countless other early cars this has been going on forever. We all know there are more big block Corvettes running around than there should be and auctions are full of "tribute or clone" cars. Many are done near perfect and would be hard for anyone but the most knowledgeable to know the difference.

AACA does not decode VINs. The club has never set itself up to be the arbitrator of what is real and what is not. Please read the following:

The objective of AACA judging is to evaluate an antique vehicle, which has been restored to the same state as the dealer could have prepared the vehicle for delivery to the customer. This includes any feature, option or accessory shown in the original factory catalog, parts book, sales literature, or company directives for the model year of the vehicle. AACA accepts motorized vehicles 25 years old or older, which were built in factories and specifically designed and manufactured for transportation use on public roadways and highways. The end result of the accurate and honest evaluation of a vehicle by a judging team will be the proper determination of the deserved award for the owners efforts.

On a personal level, I think the issue is a hugely difficult one. I am thrilled to see cars done that allow me to see a body style that I might never have had the opportunity to see. I greatly appreciate when one of these is done and the owner is completely transparent about what the car actually is. As Bob points out, the problem comes in somewhere down the road when the car has changed hands several times and someone else might not be so honest.

If the question is really one of ethics I do not see how someone can call anyone unethical that does one of these cars if there is no intent to defraud. It is the owner's car and he built if or his enjoyment. Just my opinion.

As an aside, we on more than a few occasions get asked to help an auction company verify the provenance of a car. When we can we are happily willing. We just sent 30 pages or so to RM on one car! They also were not going to accept a car in an auction that they believed to be made up until they found out that a friend of mine (the original restorer) had all the documentation needed to prove the car was not re-bodied.

Maybe this is all too much but this is one of those deals that I think there is no right or wrong answer although we all have our own opinions.

[trimacar]

Well put, Steve.....I fully agree that if the car is represented honestly, there's really no issue....

As time moves forward, as it seems to do without slowing, some history is put aside in favor of value, but all in all most old car guys are honest....

[MarrsCars]

Some cars almost are expected to be chopped, early Bentley's come immediately to mind, but personally I'd rather have the original sedan that the factory workers touched with their own hands than a significantly altered car. As far as establishing the facts around a chopped car, why not document the build on this forum or a blog, etc., and there will always be a record that this car was altered, while also making a great read!

If its your keeper and you want a chopped car I say go for it. I don't see much difference between an original owner who had his car customized in era and a contemporary owner who might alter his car to taste. Celebrities get off easy here, they can add bull horns or chrome paint and people go crazy for it, but the every man gets the sideways glance at best.

[1937hd45]

I haven't read the feature on the Stearns in detail, but I do know a Hot Rod with an original factory body is more desired that one built around a Brookville reprodution body. Every Curved Dash Oldsmobile, Stanley Steamer, and 1909 Ford I see on a show field most likely has a new body, not the one that left the factory. Bob

[JV Puleo]

As already stated, its your car. That said, I'm troubled by the business of destroying an original car in order to create a "fake" one. If you were starting with a bare chassis or a car in demonstrably wretched condition (and I've no way of knowing if this the case)... beyond what could reasonably considered restorable, I'd have no problem with the idea (again providing it was properly identified as such). Quite a lot of this goes on in other areas of collecting and it is generally regarded as borderline fraud... not that the original owner was ill intentioned but no one has any control over what happens after the item is out of their possession.

Also, (speaking as an outsider here, completely uninterested in the whole "judging" game) I wonder what the perceived difference is between the Sterns that was cited above and the six-cylinder Packard restoration we all followed... is it because one is a copy of a "regulation" model and the other isn't? If so, I find the reasoning somewhat hypocritical. Neither is as it came from the factory and yet one wins awards...

I purposely sold an unrestored brass car a few years ago, in remarkably well preserved condition, simply because I didn't like the body style and couldn't bring myself to alter it to the style I liked, even though that was one the company offered. I replaced it with a peach-basket full of miscellaneous parts, someone's abandoned project with no body at all, primarily because I felt I could build what I liked and do no damage to an intact original.

[Steve Braverman]

If you're going to do it, do it right. Franklin built a seven passenger phaeton in 1929. There are a few in existence. If you want to build one, build a replica of an actual phaeton body, don't cut up a sedan body. It will end up looking like a chop job.

[West Peterson]

Before and after. This car was being used as a parts car for the restoration of two other sedans. Wasn't much left of it. It was a major undertaking by the owner, a dyed-in-the-wool Stearns enthusiast with the blessing of all Stearns-Knight owners. This car would have NEVER been restored as a sedan, so the owner decided that he would build an exact replica of a body style that was built and offered by Stearns, but that no longer existed.

The Packard in the Restoration thread is not a replica of anything that left Packard, or any other known coachbuilding shop.

Edited January 26, 2014 by West Peterson (see edit history)

[Guest Magoo]

I say if it's your car, do as you like with it. Just don't misrepresent it.

I do have concerns about accuracy. Unless another example is physically available for cloning, the replica will not reflect the construction of the original.

[karguy12]

These types of conversions have been around forever and if done properly are not frowned upon by the majority of car lovers. The car below is one such recreation. It started as a very rare open front V-16 round back town car and was converted into the New York auto show razor back cane sided town car. I worked for Herb Brown during this car's construction and did some of the work on this car. It was minor work such as sanding and filing as the major work was being done by some of the finest craftsmen on the planet and I was there to learn. I was at the 1996 Meadowbrook Concours when it was announced on the podium as "the only one left in existence". I "outed" the car as a recreation on the Cadillac V-16 registry shortly thereafter and since that time it has been properly described as a recreation.

http://www.cadillacdatabase.org/Dbas_txt/V6srv30.htm

Even though it is a recreation of a car that no longer exists,it was featured at and won the following awards: 1994 Eyes on Classic Design: Best of Show, interior; 1996 Meadowbrook Concours d’Elegance: Most Elegant trophy; 1998 Eyes on Design: Honored Coach Builder Class, Designer’s Choice Award; 2001 Eyes on Design: The Salon Experience, Designer’s Choice Award, interior; 2002 Concours d’Elegance of the Eastern United States, Best Closed Award: pre 1940 and Anniversary Marquis Award; Cadillac. 2004 Cranbrook Concours d’Elegance: Sweet 16 Group. This car also sold recently for close to $1,000,000. So basically the car community at large voted it's acceptance in all of these shows and voted with a bid of a million dollars. I would say that if done properly and with full disclosure there are no ethical concerns.

Edited January 26, 2014 by karguy12 (see edit history)

[JV Puleo]

Freely admitting that all opinions on this subject are subjective... I'd say that the Sterns was clearly beyond saving and the owner's efforts are laudable. If the "before" picture of the sixteen-cylinder Cadillac is the same car, I'd say exactly the opposite. Of course, none of this addresses the original question as we don't know what the Franklin in question looks like...

As to acceptance by the collecting community... that will almost certainly change as it has in every other collecting pursuit. I'm familiar with any number of historical artifacts that were praised as great restorations 30 or 50 or 100 years ago and are dismissed as near fakes today. Many museums indulged in this and now, in quite a few cases, the items are no longer on display or, if they are, have an apologetic disclaimer added to their description. The trend seems to clearly be in the direction of preservation and historical honesty so who is to say how these creations will be regarded 30 years from now.

[oldford]

I have a slightly different take on the restoration of the Stearns. I think it is admirable that they created such a rare car and they did it very well... After all, like was said above, it's his money and his car... However, what I don't understand is why the AACA awarded this fake car a First Junior and then nominated for a National. This was done, apparently even after the so called provenance of the car was know to the AACA. I wonder if this would have been the case if a Model A sedan was converted to a cabriolet... or maybe there would not have been as much historical significance. After all, a Model A is just a Model A.

Frank

[41 Su8]

Isn't it remarkable that a well done and well restored fake is given all these awards and is also given legitimacy by descendants of the original marque. The awards and can only make this fake car worth an immense amount of money whereas a lowly stock Model T Speedster is an entry level car. While the workmanship is exceptional and the fake car is beautiful, shame on the AACA for giving it a once prestigious award. Just my 2 cents.

[39BuickEight]

The only way it's not ethical would be if the owner intentionally lied about it. With proper disclosure, I see nothing wrong with any well built and taken care of vehicle.

[Paul Dobbin]

West said it all. "Before and after. This car was being used as a parts car for the restoration of two other sedans. Wasn't much left of it. It was a major undertaking by the owner, a dyed-in-the-wool Stearns enthusiast with the blessing of all Stearns-Knight owners. This car would have NEVER been restored as a sedan, so the owner decided that he would build an exact replica of a body style" (Minor changes to make the Touring Car body) "that was built and offered by Stearns, but that no longer existed."

It was a parts car that made it possible. Most restorations are made of parts that were better than what we started with. End of story. West saw the car, wrote the series and is a real antique car guy who is not writing about a Chevy powered home made car bult to the desires of the builder. It is a restoration using available real parts. I like it.

[karguy12]

Freely admitting that all opinions on this subject are subjective... I'd say that the Sterns was clearly beyond saving and the owner's efforts are laudable. If the "before" picture of the sixteen-cylinder Cadillac is the same car, I'd say exactly the opposite. Of course, none of this addresses the original question as we don't know what the Franklin in question looks like...

QUOTE]

The photo of the other black V-16 towncar is not the one used to create the cain bodied replica, but it is pretty close to the condition of the one that was used. It was an all black 12,000 mile original with nice original black paint and a perfect original needlepoint interior that I had the privilege of sitting in before it was removed (and saved). But keep in mind the car bas bought in 1965 with the full intention of building this car and the conversion was started in 1969. At that time my girlfriends mother worked for the man (Mr. Holtzman) that bought the car and was doing the conversion. I don't know what people thought of this type of modification back then. We were just working on the car.

[John_S_in_Penna]

One person on this thread wrote, "I think it is admirable that they created

such a rare car..." Well, in my opinion, it's not a rare car. As nice as it

may look, it's not a real phaeton.

Would you alter a "Joe Smith" painting to a Renoir because you

liked Renoir better, or because you thought you could sell the "Renoir"

for more money?

History is fascinating. Isn't it worth preserving it as it truly was?

The body styles and colors of a car from 1929 or 1930 or any other year

historically document what one buyer specifically ordered, and what

the tastes were at that time. Recreating a car based on 2014's tastes

alters the historical record.

[West Peterson]

Isn't it remarkable that a well done and well restored fake is given all these awards and is also given legitimacy by descendants of the original marque. The awards and can only make this fake car worth an immense amount of money whereas a lowly stock Model T Speedster is an entry level car. While the workmanship is exceptional and the fake car is beautiful, shame on the AACA for giving it a once prestigious award. Just my 2 cents.

Please re-read Steve Moskowitz' post.

Because this is a one-of-a-kind car, I do not think the awards this car has received increase its value. They only verify the quality of workmanship.

[dl456]

Apparently this car was created from the remnants of a parts car. The workmanship appears to be outstanding.

I applaud the owner for this creation.

That being said, based upon the AACA's own rules there is no justification for the awards!

Dennis

[oldford]

I find it curious that there are responses in this thread that support the creation of a rare and desirable model because it has been done with the utmost care and attention to detail. At the same time we debate the ethics of the Stearns creation, there are discussions in the judging forum that go on and on regarding the need to keep the judging standards pure even down to the number of points to deduct if the correct T3 headlights are not present, or don’t match, or if the tires on a Model A should be Allstate brand or not….

Frank

[Restorer32]

By my reading of the Judging Guidelines a vehicle with a Non-Authentic body can be shown in AACA competition but would receive a mandatory 40 point deduction. First Junior would be doable, Senior would be tough. National Awards are not based on point judging but are much more "subjective" I believe.

[ericmac]

I feared this thread would stir up a real hornet's nest. Please forgive me if the question offended anyone. One point that was made that I intend to address is "we haven't seen the car. Based upon the photo of the parts car West posted, my Franklin appears to be a pretty comparable car from a condition standpoint. Much of the mid section of the body is simply gone and the wood superstructure of the top and windshield assembly has rotted away.

Answering another point, I own TWO 1929 Franklin Sedans. It is the parts car I am considering converting to a pheaton. I have seen a few Franklin sedans with the roofs hacked off. I have no interest in that sort of appearance. At the end of the day I want my car to look exactly like a factory Franklin 7-passenger touring.

I really appreaciate all the interest in this thread. I will get some photos of the car in question posted in a couple days.

Eric

[JV Puleo]

If the condition is comparable to the Sterns parts car I say go for it... but I place no value on awards and that seems to be where the differences of opinion arise. I see no ethical issue at all if the starting point is beyond reclamation. In fact, you would be doing the old car world a service in getting another one together and usable.

[41 Su8]

My problem is not with the restoration of the cars in question. I myself have a Model T Ford with a body that I myself built to look like a 1911 Open Runabout. I have received many compliments on the workmanship and am very proud of the car, but I also never claim it to 'real'. To let these cars deteriorate and not allow them to be 'put on the road' would do a disservice to the old car hobby. I also think that the quality of work is exceptional. My problem is giving the cars a prestigious award when not original. We worry about the Red Line tires or radial tires when they were not on our cars when new, the type and arrangement of top and curtain fasteners, etc. A re-bodied Classic must have documentation to prove whether or not the re-body was done by original or subsequent owners, rather than by someone just to improve its value, but a total fake is given this high honor. I don't get it!

[karguy12]

Well it could have been worse.. they could have made rat rods out of them! lol

[rusty12]

First off, I think the Stearns Knight phaeton is a wonderful car and credit is certainly due to the restorer. However, I think if the AACA is going to give National awards to vehicles such as this (those that are knowingly presented as re-bodied or modified-bodied cars) than there should be a separate class for these vehicles which clearly states what they are. The CCCA allows modified coachwork cars in the club, but they are designated in the roster as "new coachwork/altered cars". Obviously, there are some "new coachwork/altered cars" that the owners either knowingly or unknowingly list as originals but there are still a good amount of these cars that are properly listed as well.

[dalef62]

What is the difference between what the SK gentleman did and what a lot of restorers do when they buy several cars to make one good one. As in, they buy a sedan and a convertible and make a convertible out of the sedan because it is in much better shape than the sedan. Then they say that it is a factory convertible using the vin tag from the convertible. He took a sedan and made it into a phaeton using factory specifications. From what is known there were phaetons made and therefore he is not making something that never existed. Beautiful car...

[sambarn]

I have to say, I'm really on the fence on this car. It is an incredible car, fabulous in every detail and I loved getting a chance to look it over at Hershey. This car and I share a class and I hope he doesn't intend to get his Senior at Charlotte this year - It'd be a hard act to follow for my Marmon. I recognize that the Phaeton conversion is historically significant but there are a few things that I have not quite wrapped my head around.

First, The AACA has always frowned on rebodied or highly modified body vehicles. Always. Since day one. It used to be fairly common in the hobby for cars to be rebodied and the attempt to save the closed or frumpy body styles that were being converted to Speedsters/Phaetons was a goal for the club as far back as I can remember. All of a sudden It's nominated for a national award by the same club? I'm not mad or petty, these are just concerns I haven't fully reconciled.

Second: Judging. We all know it's rebodied, as was pointed out earlier, that's a 40 point deduction. With a threshold of 365, how did this car receive an award and will this always be the case when this car is judged. Are we making exceptions for one car? Is it that rare or incredible? I saw several meticulously restored one off cars with their original body on national show fields last year that were quite impressive and did not receive national award nominations. It is a beautiful car and would be so amazing in a museum or concours or tour or movie or personal collection but is it right that it's competing as something it's not: an original car?

Third: In the course of discussion about this car phrases like "parts car for two restorations" "rotted wood in the doors" and "would never be restored" are often used. When I look at pictures of the original car I think that both of the cars I finished this year were in worse shape when we began, as I'm sure were 1000s of other cars out there.

Cars that have their original body.

Choices that were made to preserve the historical significance of the car.

To keep them original and AACA eligible.

I think that using the lines "No One would restore it" or "Too far gone is a bit of a stretch. These are good words to say if you are a used car salesman but the Stearns Knight Sedan is a full classic in fairly complete shape, no worse than so many cars in our hobby and in our club started out. It's bit of rhetoric that rings less valid to me the more I hear it.

I am not "dissing" the car or the fabulous work that went into it but I am still fairly unsettled about its' participation as a competing AACA show vehicle and what the nomination for a National award, whichever award it has been nominated for, says about the AACA's stance on rebodied or highly modified cars.

Going back and reading some of the other posts, Steve Moskowitz's post and others make the point about the collector and future purchaser of the car, a few folks worry about the market value of the car but what worries me is the corruption of the game. The AACA is not in the habit of decoding VINs - Fine, but we don't have to decode, the history of the car is known. Yes, our system judges the car on how It "could have left the dealer". Well a sedan couldn't leave the dealer as a Phaeton. That's not a factory option package added on or a fancy paint job and trunk option, it's a rebodied car. Plain and Simple.

How does this affect the long term honor of the competition of AACA? I'll never be able to afford a big Full Classic Phaeton but maybe a sedan. Now if I buy one to restore I have to decide if, since it;'s no difference to the AACA and I could recieve the provenance justifying AACA Junior/Senior/National Award, Should I convert sedans to phaetons and use the AACA system as my way of proving it's legiitimacy so as to increase my profits? Do I need to loan it to the museum to achieve this kind of reward?

FInally: Considering the Full Classic status of All Stearns Knights. Why doesn't it compete as a Classic? Or is it easier to gain this provenance in 27 F where the competition is lighter.

It's all a bit tawdry feeling and leaves me unsettled. If it ends up being the car in 27F (27-29 8-cylinder -four wheel brakes) that beats me out for Senior and I have to spend the money to tow the Marmon to another National to achieve Senior, I'm going to have an even more sour taste in my mouth.

Edited January 30, 2014 by sambarn
unfinished rant (see edit history)

[Restorer32]

Well said.

[motoringicons]

Sambarn-My thoughts exactly. Thank you for phrasing it so well. If this car were to be entered in a Concours-type judging where the bulk of the judging is based on beauty vs. authenticity and with no specific guidelines as to point deduction, I could certainly understand its potential to win a top award. However, in a point system, such as AACA, where the rules are clearly defined and understood by the judges and tabulators, I fail to understand its ability to compete and/or win at a top level. Like Rusty 12's comments, I also think that it might be time for the AACA to think about adding class for cars with new coachwork. Many of the leading concours-including Pebble Beach-have featured classes for cars with new coachwork. In today's world, there are some spectacular examples of significant automobiles with either altered or completely recreated bodies that are certainly a tribute not only to their original designers but to the modern day coachbuilders as well.

I also agree that this Stearns Knight is a stunningly beautiful car and I certainly give a lot of credit to the owner for its spectacular recreation, which is a different word than restoration.

Edited January 30, 2014 by motoringicons (see edit history)

[West Peterson]

FInally: Considering the Full Classic status of All Stearns Knights. Why doesn't it compete as a Classic? Or is it easier to gain this provenance in 27 F where the competition is lighter.

It's all a bit tawdry feeling and leaves me unsettled. If it ends up being the car in 27F (27-29 8-cylinder -four wheel brakes) that beats me out for Senior and I have to spend the money to tow the Marmon to another National to achieve Senior, I'm going to have an even more sour taste in my mouth.

First, it was judged in Class 18C, not 27F. I'm not sure where you got that information.

Second, I suspect Mr. Giddings registered unknowingly in the wrong class. It should have been judged in Class 19A. The registrar missed the mistake, probably because the car fit the criteria for the wrong class.

Edited January 30, 2014 by West Peterson (see edit history)

[sambarn]

West you are so right. I got all rant-y and didn't check my facts. Heck I don't even know what 27F is. It should have been 18C. And I believe you are right that it should have been in 19A.

[Restorer32]

Certainly not the first recreation to go thru AACA judging but I must admit the National Award did cause my one eyebrow to arch a bit.

[ericmac]

Reading all of this has pretty well made up my mind. I think with my better '29 Franklin 7-passenger Sedan, I will restore it to the hilt and see how it does in judging. Hopefully it will be well recieved. With the other car, I think I will assemble the remaining parts into a phaeton and not worry so much if it is a perfectly restored car. In fact I don't think it will be, instead I see it as a "rebuilt car". I might even commit some "travesties" such as adding a dual brake system and perhaps upgrade the fuel delivery system a little. If it is pretty enough to go to a concours event and I get invited I will go. I will not show the car at an AACA or CCCA event nor will attempt to do so. This is no "dissing" of either club. In fact it is the opposite. Out of respect to the aformentioned club's stated mission and from a perspective of historical accuracy, it simply won't be a car that belongs on their show fields. On the other hand, will I drive it in and to HH Franklin club events and try to wow everyone with its roadworthiness? Absolutely! Will I let my kids sit in the back with their tools and toys and ice cream cones, even if they scratch the paint and spill a drop? Why not? I might even upholster it in vinyl and paint it some strange creative color....like maroon with orange fenders (like the car in Franklin's '29 ads by the way). As I look at this thread I suspect rebuilding (not restoring) the car as a phaeton might give me license to have a lot of fun with the car.

I really do appreciate all the opinions voiced here. Believe me when I said I was not trying to stir up a hornet's nest; I was just trying to make up my own mind about following another member's lead.

Eric

[Steve Braverman]

I hope I get to see it finished one day at the Trek, and maybe get a ride.

Something else you might consider, depending on your skills and taste, is building a station wagon. I would like to build one some day, and I think a '28 or '29 long-wheelbase chassis would be ideal.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Steve Braverman (see edit history)