Glitzy, Stripper, or in between ?

[f.f.jones]

The garage length/continental kit thread got me to thinking. There is a lot of discussion about the trim levels and accessory selection on collector cars. I'd like to pose a question:

What is your honest preference: Top of the line, fully accessorized cars, Plain-Jane bottom of the line strippers, or somewhere in the middle? What do you own, where did you grow up and what's popular in the region you now live in? 

 

Might be interesting to find out....

[John Byrd]

f.f.jones, the 1st new car I had, (and I special ordered it) was a 69 Fairlane Cobra. I ordered all the performance stuff, but left off just about everything else except "color-keyed" outside mirrors and twin rear speakers.  Base models, plain Jane's, with a big surprise under the hood still is my favorite way to have a car. If it's an old used clunker with too much motor, even better, ha ! I do put different tires and wheels on if required for better handling and/ or traction, but try to use "dog dish" hub caps and black-walls.  My wife on the other hand wants every option she can get on her cars....yuk !

[1937hd45]

Out of my era of interest, but what does it cost to redo the chrome on a '58-'59 Buick or Cadillac? 

[Gunsmoke]

I think you'll find a lot of the members on here are into pre-war cars or at least pre-1950 cars. Those cars by and large had few "accessories", (maybe bumpers?, ashtrays, sidemounts, wood spokes vs wires, occasionally a grill guard). Usually no choice of engines, A/C, power accessories, suspension or drivetrain options, even upholstery options and paint were limited except for color. The choices were mostly about how much money (and prestige) one wanted, such as rolling thru the Chev, Pontiac, Olds, Buick, Cadillac range. Then there was the model range, with typically Roadsters cheapest, then coupes, sedans and touring cars. And of course, the small number luxury makes (Duesenberg the best example, and PA, Marmon, Packard ...) were favored by the rich (and still are). From my knowledge and experience, keen old car guys pay little attention to accessories or glitz, and focus on style, make/model, "top-down" always sells, and general condition of cars. JMHO.   

[Steve9]

1 hour ago, 1937hd45 said:

Out of my era of interest, but what does it cost to redo the chrome on a '58-'59 Buick or Cadillac? 

I’ve seen the answer to this on this site before. It’s SO much money that you’re smarter to buy an already done car in prime condition.

[TTR]

2 hours ago, 1937hd45 said:

Out of my era of interest, but what does it cost to redo the chrome on a '58-'59 Buick or Cadillac? 

It depends and can vary hugely based on quality expectations.

Last time I had ALL bright works, including ALL exterior & interior aluminum, die-cast, steel and stainless restored, i.e. stripped, straightened, prepped, polished, anodized  and/or plated to “Pebble Beach” quality on a late-‘50s American made luxury convertible, the total cost was in higher 5 figure range and that didn’t include any of the fitment prep I did before, during or after.

But was over a decade ago, so I assume similar job today would be higher.

 

OTOH, I’ve seen similar cars with (almost) ALL “bright works” restored for lot less, but IMO, results were far below “factory” and in some cases, below what I would expect from reasonably good starting point prior to reconditioning.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by TTR (see edit history)

[Buffalowed Bill]

I like original cars. I leave them the way they came, unless there has been some bonehead alteration made that can be easily returned to original. I get just as much charge out of the plain Janes as I do out of the more highly optioned cars. I wasn't always so focused and it took decades before I began to understand how important history would become in the hobby. So really it's not just a matter of either, or, it's both. Every car in my collection has its own character and each, regardless of value, is a part of the family.

[Trreinke]

So I currently have a top of the line '31 Chevy Special Sedan with all (except smoker kit) accessories. As a contrast, someday I would like to get a plain-jane 3 window coupe just so I can show the difference between the fanciest most optioned closed car and the cheapest most utilitarian closed car. 

 

About a $150 difference in 1931.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Trreinke (see edit history)

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Having grown up as a teen in the 70s my exposure to the hobby and prewar cars in general, in central CT anyway was a network of mainly non Classic owner-hobbyist restorer type folks, the Model A and big 3 entry 30s cars mostly.  One friend of my dad had some big iron and it was not uncommon at the local shows. 

Gussied up As, and foglights, driving lights, www tires and trim rings on the 30s stuff was all pretty standard.  

Personally I don't mind a 30, 31 Deluxe roadster all decked out but I appreciate the plainer cars as well, now in vogue with A folks.  In the middle suits me fine. 

I don't get too excited or upset about anything you can bolt on or off in five minutes.

Those continental kits however, I would remove on most every car pictured in the other thread, didn't comment though, as intent of OP wasn't looking for criticism.

Last thought, a really good design, whether it is a custom bodied Full Classic, a 30, 31 A roadster, or a 65 Mustang should stand on its own merit regardless of accesories.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Steve_Mack_CT (see edit history)

[TAKerry]

11 hours ago, Gunsmoke said:

I think you'll find a lot of the members on here are into pre-war cars or at least pre-1950 cars. Those cars by and large had few "accessories", (maybe bumpers?, ashtrays, sidemounts, wood spokes vs wires, occasionally a grill guard). Usually no choice of engines, A/C, power accessories, suspension or drivetrain options, even upholstery options and paint were limited except for color. The choices were mostly about how much money (and prestige) one wanted, such as rolling thru the Chev, Pontiac, Olds, Buick, Cadillac range. Then there was the model range, with typically Roadsters cheapest, then coupes, sedans and touring cars. And of course, the small number luxury makes (Duesenberg the best example, and PA, Marmon, Packard ...) were favored by the rich (and still are). From my knowledge and experience, keen old car guys pay little attention to accessories or glitz, and focus on style, make/model, "top-down" always sells, and general condition of cars. JMHO.   

Not sure about this... So many times someone will post a pic of what I think is a nice looking pre war car and a lot of people will come out and say something to the effect 'nice car but it has too many accessories!' 

 

For me I suppose it all depends on the car. I too prefer factory correct if the car at question was a stripper than that is fine likewise if it were loaded. My 2 cars happen to be loaded with all factory options, my next project down the line is pretty much a base stripper. Looking forward to that as well.

[Dandy Dave]

Geez. I was expecting a nice looking woman posing with an antique auto. Well, OK. Look over a 1933 Pierce Arrow Roadster sometime. Definitely has Glamour.   

[60FlatTop]

6 hours ago, Buffalowed Bill said:

Every car in my collection has its own character and each, regardless of value, is a part of the family.

☝️ Every car has a reason for being there. Just ask. The reasons may  have shifted slightly from car to car but they are there mainly to please me.

 

Core things do change. Seems like I am currently leaning toward a solid 6 Series BMW coupe of a vintage prior to OBD2. Now how could that qualifier come into play?

[JACK M]

I like em from either end of this spectrum.

Not so much in the middle.

All or none kind of a thing.

 

Less is more and more is not enough.

[stretch cab]

I also was a teenager during the early 70's and made the rounds of the AACA shows in the south.  My dad always referred to his 31 Model A Deluxe Roadster as a "Sport" Roadster but turns out Henry never made that designation for a roadster.  His car, (mine now) has the double sided wide whitewalls, orange wheels, dual side mounts with metal covers and of course, a spotlight.  My dad loved all the bling so I guess he was the "Sport".

When we restored my early 30 Model A Rdst. PU during that time we chose a non standard color and also went with the WW tires.  I never did like the color or the WW's.  Some vehicles just need to be plain.  MY2centavos.

[Buffalowed Bill]

If some of the Plain Jane cars are not saved nobody is going to know what the looked like. We talk here about historically correct presentation. What could be more historically correct then an original production four door stripper model. These probably made up the lyons share of the production, but have survived in much smaller numbers then some the more sporty or prestigious models. 

Edited December 18, 2021 by Buffalowed Bill (see edit history)

[1912Staver]

I like early Mustangs, although I have not owned one for going on 35 years now. The best of them are either GT's preferably with a factory Hi -Po engine { the K code cars } or at least with an A code 289 4V engine. And even better the early Shelby GT 350's.  But both factory GT's and particularly GT 350's are way up there in todays market. Way , way up in the case of the Shelby's. 

Most of the improved specification parts are a pretty simple bolt on to the lower spec cars. Even the differences between a factory 6 and a V8 car are 99% bolt on and in theory at least reversible. I can't fathom why someone would want to go back to 4 stud wheels and small brakes , but who knows ?

But my intention would not be more glitz, just a car more suited to modern traffic. A 65 or 6 Mustang coupe with a 289 / 302 , 4 speed { later 5 speed even a better choice imho } , disks, GT springs and shocks  and preferably a 9" is the way they should have been built in the first place. If it's all bolt on anyway why not ? Standard interior is fine with me, the pony stuff is once again pretty pricy and the door panels are somewhat fragile. Slightly over the top in my books.

Edited December 14, 2021 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[junkyardjeff]

I like the fancy models on the cheaper cars and the cheaper models on the more expensive cars.  I found a cheap 58 Buick 2 door sedan in the local old junkyard that was complete and only had a automatic trans for options but about 40 years too late.

Edited December 15, 2021 by junkyardjeff
Added words (see edit history)

[TerryB]

First photo….too much bling, second photo much better!

[John348]

I restored and still own my 62 Chevy Biscayne small block V-8 car with an powerglide. Far from an easy restoration a lot of interior parts are scarce, same with the two door sedan hardware window regulators and such. Finding the correct seat material was difficult, and I am always plagued with the same stupid questions "how come you didn't put a 409 in it?" or "why didn't you paint it red?"  

 

 

[TerryB]

What a great looking Chevy John!  

[bryankazmer]

I'll give a little dissension on the Chevy roadsters.  The rumble seat roof and fluids cans on the running board are interesting period accessories and conversation items.  The second roadster is of course what most actually looked like, but is indeed very austere.

[dictator27]

Chevy roadsters?

[John348]

1 hour ago, TerryB said:

What a great looking Chevy John!  

Thanks

[TerryB]

40 minutes ago, dictator27 said:

Chevy roadsters?

Henry Louis Chevrolet Ford products😀.

[Gunsmoke]

The 2 Model A Ford Roadsters portray the topic so well. The basic model probably reflects 99% of the roadsters as sold when new. The "glitzed up" one is not likely like any sold new. Most or many of the shown accessories were not available from Ford in 1930/31. Buyers in that period who could afford an extra $100 to spruce up their vehicle likely bought a more expensive make. Ford Roadsters in those days sold for about $400-$500, same for a Chevy Roadster, both lowest priced car in the model. The Chevys came with bumpers as a dealer added option at $15 a pair! Love the base Model A  

[bryankazmer]

mea culpa!  Even I can recognize a ModelA.  Brain on vacation

[TerryB]

1 hour ago, bryankazmer said:

mea culpa!  Even I can recognize a ModelA.  Brain on vacation

Too much egg nog, it happens this time of the year!

[Larry Schramm]

On 12/13/2021 at 9:35 PM, 1937hd45 said:

Out of my era of interest, but what does it cost to redo the chrome on a '58-'59 Buick or Cadillac? 

 

I have been told that $50K would not be out of the ball park depending on expectations and condition of the starting trim.

[JamesR]

I like all old cars, but I tend towards the more basic models, personally. Using a real estate parallel, decked out and fully optioned cars of a particular model are (to me) "the most expensive house on the block." I know that's a weak argument from a seller's perspective - Super Sports and GTO's sell for more money than the standard versions - but from a buyer's perspective I can afford a Ford Mainline. The equivalent condition Crestline Skyliner, maybe not.

[Larry Schramm]

Less stuff on the car, fewer items to go bad.

[bryankazmer]

on a new car, maximum mechanical features with minimum luxuries = best performance value.  only exception is get good seats.

[Larry Schramm]

1 hour ago, bryankazmer said:

on a new car, maximum mechanical features with minimum luxuries = best performance value.  only exception is get good seats.

 

With bun warmers.

[Paul Dobbin]

Anpthe comment on the two Model A Roadsters:   Thie first one is a 1930/31.  The second a 1928/29.

I think the historic time period was effected by financial well being that affected purchase options.  

As the depression lessend, Accessories were looked on as upgrades.

Example:   My fathers 1931 Model A pictured in 1938.   (With a chopped top, headlight Eyebrows and

yellow paint, odd horn))

[rocketraider]

I like both ways, but prefer cars that are equipped as such a car would have been IN ITS OWN TIME.

 

As an example, a fully loaded Chevy, Plymouth or Ford was an anomaly- as was a stripped-down Cadillac, Imperial or Lincoln. Mid-priced cars could have gone either way depending on the local market.

 

You never saw a base equipment Olds 88 or Buick LeSabre in this part of the world; dealers simply wouldn't order them because of customer expectations of at least automatic transmission, power steering and brakes, and upgraded interior and wheelcovers. In the Northeast and Midwest, such base cars were common.

[rocketraider]

On 12/16/2021 at 8:17 AM, John348 said:

I am always plagued with the same stupid questions "how come you didn't put a 409 in it?" or "why didn't you paint it red?"  

 

 

 

Use my standard answer- "why the hell would I want to do that?" coupled with one of my patented "you are the dumbest SOB I've ever met" looks. Amazingly effective. 🙂

 

Gawjus Biscayne BTW. One of my favorite 60s GM colors. Fawn, Sahara, Caravan Gold, whatever the individual Division called it, it was a definitive 1960s color they all looked great in.

[Angelfish]

This thread is misleading and disappointing.

Edited December 18, 2021 by Angelfish (see edit history)